A recent article in The Telegraph celebrated the Church of England’s decision to reject a proposal for gluten-free bread and non-alcoholic wine in Holy Communion, dismissing it as "wokery" with "no biblical precedent." But this argument—that churches shouldn’t adopt practices without a direct scriptural example—is not just weak. It’s profoundly anti-Christian.
The Bible itself is full of faithful people doing things for which there was no biblical precedent at the time. When Peter and the early church welcomed Gentile believers into the Eucharist, there was no scriptural basis for doing so—on the contrary, Jewish tradition would have strongly resisted it. And yet, led by the Spirit, they pushed forward into a new expression of faith that better reflected the radical inclusivity of Christ’s love.
Christianity isn’t about simply replicating past practices; it’s about discerning where God is leading us today. To say, “If it’s not in the Bible, we shouldn’t do it,” is to ignore how the church has always evolved. There’s no biblical precedent for church buildings, Christmas services, bishops’ vestments, or even, ironically, the Bible as we know it today. And yet, these things are embraced because they are believed to serve the church’s mission.
More to the point, there is biblical precedent for rejecting tradition when it excludes or marginalises. Jesus repeatedly challenged religious leaders who clung to rules at the expense of compassion. He healed on the Sabbath. He dined with outcasts. He placed love above legalism.
The argument against inclusivity in the Eucharist boils down to this: “We’ve always done it this way.” But history shows that Christian faith isn’t about clinging to the past—it’s about courageously stepping into God’s future. And if the church is happy to ignore biblical precedent when it comes to appointing bishops (no one is casting lots like they did in Acts 1), why not be equally willing to move forward in the name of inclusion, justice, and love?
Ultimately, faith was never about conserving or parroting the insights of those who came before —it was always about following Christ in our own time and place. And there is certainly no biblical precedent for making the Bible, rather than Jesus, the object of Christian devotion.
In the light of all this, one has to ask: Where have all the “radical believers” from the Charismatic Revivals gone? Aren’t there any Christians left who are committed to the rewilding of faith? Didn’t we embark on a mission to reclaim a church that is vibrant, unpredictable, and truly alive - where love and justice flourish beyond the fences of convention?
Dismiss it all as “wokery” if you want, but that was always the point - to stay awake.
But we didn’t, did we? We just shrivelled the whole thing up into “getting saved” while piously calling for Jesus to “take the wheel” as we ourselves slumbered along the sacred road.
Now, conservative fundamentalism has the wheel, slowly suffocating the life out of a once vibrant and courageous faith. We can’t even agree to make the most basic invitation to the Lord’s Table an inclusive one - no wonder we’re all so emaciated. God help us.