Global Anglican Commentary

Article 13. The Authority of Churches That Have Denied the Orthodox Faith

by The Rev. Ron Offringa

Article Thirteen

We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.

“St. Augustine arguing with the Donatists” by Charles-André van Loo (1705–1765)

The modern era of global Anglicanism has been marked by significant theological and moral drift. Doctrines affirmed and enshrined in the councils, creeds, catechisms, and liturgies of the Church have been called into question, redefined, or outright abandoned. This rejection of the historic faith of the Church has coincided with a rejection of her practice as well, with grave moral sins being not only approved of but participated in by the very shepherds who vowed to “banish and drive away all erroneous, and strange doctrines, contrary to God’s Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your Cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given.”1

The depth of error within the Canterbury communion was perhaps best exemplified by some bishops at the 2022 Lambeth Conference who, in defending their determination to allow for two disparate teachings regarding the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, appealed to a heterodox view of the Trinity. According to then-Canon Phil Ashey,2 “those addressing questions about the Lambeth Call on Reconciliation cited differences within the Trinity as the basis for addressing differences within the Church. Did this analogy represent a departure from the apostolic teaching settled at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) on the nature of the Trinity—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—being three persons but one God, perfectly united?”3 The historic teaching of the Church indeed affirms that there are not three separate centers of action, will, or consciousness within the one God, but “we confess the holy and inseparable Trinity, that is, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, to be of one deity, of one nature and substance or essence, so we will profess that it has one natural will, power, operation, domination, majesty, potency, and glory.”4 If we are willing to revise our theology proper in direct opposition to the conciliar teaching of the Church Catholic, what hope do we have of maintaining unity in issues of Christology, Pneumatology, ecclesiology, sacramentology, or morality? In order for the Global Anglican Communion to not only survive its current metamorphosis, but thrive in a new era, our fellowship, ministry, and mission must be grounded in the doctrine, discipline and sacraments of the Church.5

“Come Out of Her, My People”

What shall we make of those Provinces that have refused correction and continue to deny the faith and practice of the Church not only in doctrine but in morals? These concerns are longstanding, GAFCON recently declaring in the Kigali Commitment that after “25 years of persistent warnings by most Anglican Primates, repeated departures from the authority of God’s Word have torn the fabric of the Communion.”6 The failure to cling to the teachings of Scripture has led to both moral and theological error. There has been a departure “from biblical orthodoxy… [in] matters such as human sexuality and marriage, the uniqueness and divinity of Christ, his bodily resurrection, his promised return, the summons to faith and repentance and the final judgement.” 7

The action of the Church of England to elevate someone to the See of Canterbury who in word and practice denies the orthodox faith is far from the first event to raise concerns.8 Need we rehearse the failure of the Episcopal Church to try Bishop James Pike for heresy9 due to his denial of the doctrine of the Trinity and the virgin birth,10 their refusal to try Bishop John Shelby Spong for heresy over the denial of nearly every Christian doctrine,11 or their refusal to hold to the historic teaching of sexuality in the consecration of practicing homosexual Gene Robinson?12

The words of St. Paul to St. Timothy are of great use to us in such a context:

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God’s first foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.” (2 Timothy 2:15-19)

Depart we have—not from the house of the Lord, but from “‘shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!’ declares the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:1). As St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202) taught, this sort of departure is necessary from those “who bring strange fire to the altar of God—namely, strange doctrines” and “who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts, and, do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts.”13 As the Scriptures enjoin us repeatedly, we are to have nothing to do with those who have the appearance of godliness but deny its power, who are unrepentant of sexual immorality, and who do not hold to the teachings of Scripture. Such we warn, not as enemies but as brothers, longing for their repentance that our fellowship may be restored and setting the example with our own repentance.14

Our departure from these ecclesiological structures demands that we also reject their authority because any authority that the Church or her ministers exercise has been received from the Lord himself. The Sacraments we administer are not our own, but Christ’s. The doctrines we preach, teach, and confess are not our own, but the deposit of Sacred Scripture. The discipline unto which we are bound is that of the same Scriptures and the succeeding practice of the Church Catholic. No minister can confer grace apart from the work of the Spirit. No institution can claim the authority of Christ while rejecting his doctrine and discipline. The Apostles plainly warn us that “everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God” (2 John 9). This is a sobering statement. If those who do not abide in the teaching of Christ do not have God, then neither do they retain God’s authority in the ministry. Therefore, to reject their authority is not a petty concern for merely ‘ideological or doctrinal purity,’ rather, it is a serious reality demanded by faithfulness to Christ and his gospel. But we must take heed, too, lest we fall. If we would avoid the same fate, we must “Watch [our]selves, so that [we] may not lose what [we] have worked for, but may win a full reward.” (2 John 8). Thus, we reject the authority of apostate provinces, enjoining them to repent, but in the meantime we must build up new jurisdictional boundaries and provinces for the sake of the Faithful and the preservation of the Faith.

Neo-Donatist Concerns

How should we understand our relationships with those provinces and their respective clergy, now rejected by the majority of the Global Anglican Communion as schismatics who have abandoned the faith? In particular, are we in danger of repeating the error of the Donatists who rejected the validity of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church when priests and bishops failed in the fiery trials of persecution? In the maintenance of our ordination vows, are we attempting to limit the scope of God’s grace?15

When the Donatists attempted to cleanse the Church apart from him whose “winnowing fork is in his hand” that he might separate the wheat from the chaff (Matthew 3:12), the Church rightly recognized that the failures of an individual minister of the gospel did not invalidate the Sacraments administered by the same. The sacraments administered by those who were called traditors—bishops, priests, and deacons who denied the faith to avoid persecution or martyrdom—were not invalidated by their failures. This was not to negate the seriousness of the traditors’ moral failures, but to affirm the teaching of Scripture that “if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful” (2 Timothy 2:12-13). Indeed, as Article XXVI teaches, “Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away from their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.”

The concern of the Donatists was primarily one of moral, not doctrinal failure, and the ability of the Church to reconcile those who have denied the faith. The Donatists, and the Novatians before them, were unlike heretical groups such as the Arians, Macedonians, Paulianists, and others insofar as their schism was grounded in a desire for moral, not doctrinal, purity.

Given the significant departure of some within the Canterbury communion by blessing sin, denying the faith, and refusing correction of doctrinal error, we must now call into question whether we share the same faith. We are not facing the concern of Donatism (moral failure), but of tolerating heresy and sin (doctrinal failure). Where the Donatists were concerned about an instance of rejecting Christ and his gospel in the face of persecution, we face prolonged, decided rejection of the teachings of Scripture and a refusal to hold clergy accountable for the abject breaking of their ordination vows. We must stand against such errors, calling for repentance and robustly defending the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Let Us Pray

The Jerusalem Declaration calls on us to pray for those who have apostatized. Though, in accordance with our Lord’s instructions, we must treat those who refuse to listen to the Church as Gentiles and tax collectors (Matthew 18:17), we yet pray for their repentance, even as the Lord himself called tax collectors and Gentiles to turn in repentance and share the life of his kingdom. We do not gloat over our divisions or claim ourselves the victor; to have lost our brothers and sisters to heresy and sin is grievous. Rather, resting in the truth that our merciful God hates nothing that he has made and desires not the death of a sinner, we confidently pray: O Lord, preserve and save those who have strayed from “all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that they may be saved.”16 Our desire is that our Lord would reunite what has been divided, to restore in one people those who have been torn asunder, that we might once again be “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:19-20). Lord, in your mercy, hear our prayer.

  1. “The Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.” The Book of Common Prayer, 1662. We recognize that the 1979 Book of Common Prayer lacks this vow, but those called to the Episcopacy still vow to “Guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church” (BCP 1979 518). ↩︎

  2. Now Bishop of the Diocese of Western Anglicans. ↩︎

  3. Canon Phil Ashey, “Lambeth 2022 Diary:  Bad News and Good News - American Anglican Council,” American Anglican Council, August 3, 2022, accessed April 28, 2023, https://americananglican.org/lambeth-2022-diary-bad-news-and-good-news/. ↩︎

  4. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, “The Letter of Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, to the Emperor” in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, ed. XIV of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series Accordance electronic ed. (New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1890), paragraph 85184. Note regarding the term rendered potency, Pope Agatho uses the Latin potestatis, meaning power or authority, not potency in the sense of potential or change. ↩︎

  5. We shall revisit these in the succeeding article in looking at Irenaeus on sound doctrine, apostolic succession, and holy living. ↩︎

  6. GAFCON. “GAFCON IV – The Kigali Commitment,” April 21, 2023. https://www.gafcon.org/news/gafcon-iv-the-kigali-commitment. ↩︎

  7. Ibid. ↩︎

  8. Danica Kirka, “Church of England Allows Blessings for Same-Sex Couples,” AP NEWS, February 9, 2023, https://apnews.com/article/anglicanism-england-london-lgbtq-people-marriage-382f4f61ed3f38cbf9df1c773164cb0f. And William Crozier, Where the new Archbishop of Canterbury stands on same-sex marriage,” The Independent UK, October, 10, 2025, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/new-archbishop-canterbury-sarah-mullally-same-sex-marriage-b2843326.html ↩︎

  9. Plowman, Edward E. (October 13, 1967). “The Pike Side Show.” Christianity Today. pp. 44–45. Archived from the original on October 25, 2020. Retrieved April 28, 2023. ↩︎

  10. Pike, James A., “Three-Pronged Synthesis,” The Christian Century, Vol. 77 Iss 51, pp. 1496-1500. ↩︎

  11. Rt. Rev. Dr. John Saxbee, “Obituary: Bishop John Shelby Spong,” October 1, 2021, https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2021/1-october/gazette/obituaries/obituary-bishop-john-shelby-spong. ↩︎

  12. Jonathan Finer, “Episcopalians Consecrate First Openly Gay Bishop,” Washington Post, November 3, 2003, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/11/03/episcopalians-consecrate-first-openly-gay-bishop/5e64c11e-346a-49d1-84d0-80e13a698cb2/. ↩︎

  13. Haer. 4.26.2-3. All quotations of Adversus Haereses are from Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (S.L.: Ex Fontibus, 2015). ↩︎

  14. 2 Timothy 3:1-9, 1 Corinthians 5:11, 2 John 7-11, 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15, Galatians 6:1, Matthew 7:2. ↩︎

  15. Readers may recall our brief Note on Schism which anticipated this fuller treatment. ↩︎

  16. Collect for Good Friday, Book of Common Prayer, 1662. ↩︎