‘Do Whatever He Tells You’: What's Next for British Methodist Evangelicals?

Methodist Central Hall, Westminster, was the setting for a confrontation that is written into the collective memory of British evangelicalism. Almost fifty-five years ago, Britain’s two most prominent evangelical ministers were sitting on the platform. The meeting was chaired by John Stott, Rector of the Anglican All Souls Church, Langham Place. The address was to be given by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, minister of the independent Westminster Chapel. 

To Stott’s dismay, Lloyd-Jones used the opportunity to call evangelicals out of the mainline denominations and to unite in a new evangelical movement. Stott later spoke of looking out from the platform and seeing many Anglican evangelical ministers sitting on the edges of their seats, ready to get up and follow Lloyd-Jones. Stott felt he must intervene, and called evangelicals to stay in their denominations, working for change from within. For the chair to intervene in contradiction of the speaker was a breach of convention for which he later apologised, but the rift had opened.

The evangelical movements within British Methodism have, over the years, taken Stott’s line, encouraging evangelicals to work for change from within the denomination. However, a line has now been crossed. The British Methodist Conference has voted to affirm cohabitation (that is, sexual intimacy outside marriage) and to open Methodist premises to the blessing of same-sex relationships and the solemnisation of same-sex marriages, with Methodist ministers officiating. It passed these resolutions by a massive majority, regardless of the fact that, the last time they were asked--in 2013--more than 60% of Methodists across the denomination responded to say that they did not wish the Church to look again at its position on marriage.

There is a conscience clause which means that no local church and no minister will be required to act contrary to the dictates of conscience in these matters. However, the relegation of the teaching of the Bible, the teaching of two thousand years of Christian history, and the teaching of the vast majority of Christians around the world today to a minority position within the Church, requiring the protection of a conscience clause, is a move that many Methodists find untenable. We look around and find the Church has left us, crossing a line that we cannot, in good conscience, cross.

There are tens of thousands of British Methodists who are greatly saddened by these decisions of the Conference and are left with a deep sense of bereavement. We believe that the Lord Jesus holds out the very best vision for life this world has ever known. That includes his teaching on marriage and relationships, deeply rooted in the Bible: that marriage is the life-long union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, and the only appropriate context for sexual intimacy; all human beings are called to fidelity within such marriage and celibacy outside of it.

The Conference claims to have drawn on other sources of authority, not least the social sciences, and yet it has ignored the overwhelming evidence that shows that children who are brought up by two biological parents married to each other do better against almost every measurable outcome compared to their peers in other circumstances. As always, when we move away from the teaching of Jesus, it is the most vulnerable who will pay the price for those decisions; it is children who will suffer most.

These debates are ultimately, of course, about much more than what marriage may or may not be. They are about the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of his Word. They are about what it means to be human beings, male and female, created in the image of God. These deeper roots of the debates were revealed in controversy at the Conference about a proposal to state that fulness of life is found only in Christ. It turned out to be such a controversial proposal that the Conference decided not to vote on it in case it was too divisive. Instead, it was replaced by a weaker proposal, stating that Jesus shows us the supreme example of sacrificial love. That statement is, of course, true, but a denomination that can affirm only the supremacy of Christ, and not his uniqueness, is in a very perilous state indeed. The direction of travel the Church has adopted has been overly influenced by controversial political pressure groups and is shaped by a vision which is far from a biblical and Christian worldview. When the Church affirms what the Bible prohibits, we can no longer follow Stott’s lead, encouraging evangelicals to stay within the denomination. Rather, we have encouraged each to seek the Lord’s direction and ‘do whatever he tells you’. 

Each year, Methodist ministers are required to affirm that we continue to preach the doctrines of the Methodist Church and administer its discipline. Lay preachers make a similar affirmation regarding the Church’s doctrines. For myself, I have now put on record that I can no longer make such an affirmation. It remains to be seen how the Church will respond. There are many others who are in the same position. It is concerning that the Conference voted to treat the cases of ministers who are no longer able to make the annual affirmations as disciplinary, rather than pastoral matters.

Shortly after the votes of the Methodist Conference, Methodist Evangelicals Together held a gathering for those committed to the original Wesleyan evangelical vision, including the biblical understanding of marriage: ‘Remaining Faithful: Moving Forward’. We set out our strategy. 

Firstly, we will continue to support all evangelicals, however they choose to respond. Some speak of a commitment to remain within the Methodist Church because of a sense of vocation. Others feel they have no option other than to remain, because they feel trapped by the ‘golden handcuffs’ of the central ownership of buildings and finances and by the fact that, because most ministers live in manses owned by the Methodist Church, they stand to lose not only their stipend and base of ministry, but also their home. Still others have been clear that they cannot now in good conscience remain within the Methodist Church and there have already been a number of resignations by both lay and ordained individuals as well as entire congregations. From the beginning of the debates, we have encouraged those who leave to strengthen existing Wesleyan evangelical work within this country, and we are committed to helping to open such doors.

A further disappointment in the Conference came when it voted not to release the buildings of those congregations who could not in good conscience remain in connexion with the British Methodist Conference. We will, then, secondly seek--as far as it is open to us--to continue the conversations with the relevant committees and with the Conference itself over the release of property. There are many Methodists who feel that, throughout previous generations, faithful people have given sacrificially to further the cause of the kingdom in their locality and the resources have now been entrusted to them; they cannot simply walk away from them without doing everything they can to enable those resources to continue to be used for the purpose for which they were given--the faithful work of the gospel where they are.

For some time, we have, thirdly, been longing for something positive to come out of all the turmoil: a closer working together of fellow Wesleyan evangelicals in Britain. Our working name for the group--although who knows how it will develop--is the Association of Wesleyan Evangelicals--‘AWE’. We long for Britain to be filled with the awe of the Lord. We were therefore delighted that the leaders of other Wesleyan evangelical denominations joined us in our gathering and have expressed their desire to work towards greater unity in this way.

John Stott was faithful throughout his life to the call to work for denominational change from within. He often used to speak about the experience of being a Christian in contemporary culture as ‘swimming against the tide’. That too has been the experience of many evangelicals within the mainline denominations. 

Those who have a penchant for British seaside holidays, however, know that there comes a time when the tide has gone out so far that it is best to stop swimming and to start building sandcastles instead. There are many who believe that, when the Church affirms that which the Bible expressly prohibits, the tide has indeed gone out so far that it is time to stop swimming against it and, instead, focus on joining in building--not castles of sand--but a kingdom which will stand forever. That is why many Methodists are now, with heavy hearts, looking for spiritual homes elsewhere.

The words of Psalm 130 have resonated with many of us in these days: ‘Out of the deep have I called unto thee, O Lord’, in the Coverdale translation, well-known to John Wesley through The Book of Common Prayer. On 24 May 1738, Wesley went to St Paul’s Cathedral in London where the choir sang a setting of that Psalm. The words perfectly expressed the condition of his own soul. Little did he know then that one of his lowest moments would become one of his highest, for that evening he famously went to a society in Aldersgate Street where his heart was strangely warmed.

It is my prayer that this very low moment for Wesleyan evangelicals in the British Methodist Church will, through the mercies of God, turn into one of our highest moments as we form new partnerships and see a rekindling of the Wesleyan flame in the motherland of Methodism to make Jesus known.

 

The Rev. David A. Hull, PhD, is Chair of Methodist Evangelicals Together and a member of the Evangelical Alliance’s Council. He is a minister in full connexion with the British Methodist Church and currently serves with the Free Methodist Church as Lead Pastor of Freedom Church in Kingswood, Bristol (UK). His analysis of the developments which led to the controversial decisions of the British Methodist Church, The Runaway Train, can be downloaded freely from www.methodistevangelicals.org.uk/runaway-train.

David A. Hull4 Comments