2. IT’S ALL ABOUT THE BIBLE; IT’S CLARITY, AUTHORITY AND SUFFICIENCY GIVE US CONFIDENCE IN WHAT WE BELIEVE AS ANGLICANS.

This is clear from the section on “The Authority of God’s word”:

“The current divisions in the Anglican Communion have been caused by radical departures from the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Some within the Communion have been taken captive by hollow and deceptive philosophies of this world (Colossians 2:8). Such a failure to hear and heed God’s Word undermines the mission of the church as a whole.

The Bible is God’s Word written, breathed out by God as it was written by his faithful messengers (2 Timothy 3:16). It carries God’s own authority, is its own interpreter, and it does not need to be supplemented, nor can it ever be overturned by human wisdom.

God’s good Word is the rule of our lives as disciples of Jesus and is the final authority in the church.” (Emphasis added)

Here we see the Kigali Statement echoing, in different words, the same assertion as the Global South Section 1.6 on the sufficiency of God’s Word written in its plain and canonical sense, and the rejection of any “hermeneutics of skepticism,” which Anglican revisionists have brought to the text of scripture.  The Kigali Statement goes on to say of the Bible:

“It grounds, energises and directs our mission in the world. The fellowship we enjoy with our risen and ascended Lord is nourished as we trust God’s Word, obey it and encourage each other to allow it to shape each area of our lives.”

Gafcon continues to stand for the Bible as the very foundation upon which Anglicans have confidence to believe what we believe, to have fellowship with Jesus himself, and to find “energy and direction” for all we do! Therefore, the crisis in the Anglican Communion is not about “differences of opinion” or “secondary matters” of human sexuality.  The crisis is about the very basis upon which the Church is constituted, especially when the plain reading of the text is ignored:

“This fellowship is broken when we turn aside from God’s Word or attempt to reinterpret it in any way that overturns the plain reading of the text in its canonical context and so deny its truthfulness, clarity, sufficiency, and thereby its authority (Jerusalem Declaration #2).”

In other words, what is ultimately at stake here is what we have proclaimed for the last 25 years: the truthfulness, clarity, sufficiency, and authority of the Bible.  For this reason, it is impossible to embrace “pluriform truth” as the Archbishop of Canterbury did at the recent Lambeth Conference 2022. For this reason, GAFCON rejects the Canterbury led communion narrative of “walking together in good disagreement” as the basis for fellowship, much less Communion:

“We reject the claim that two contradictory positions can both be valid in matters affecting salvation.  We cannot ‘walk together’ in good disagreement with those who have deliberately chosen to walk away from the ‘faith once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3).  The people of God ‘walk in his ways’, ‘walk in the truth’, and ‘walk in the light’, all of which require that we do not walk in Christian fellowship with those in darkness (Deuteronomy 8:6; 2 John 4; 1 John 1:7).”

Read it all.

Canon Phil takes an in-depth walk through of 8 major take-aways from the @gafconference Kigali Commitment released today. https://t.co/BzhWk6VJnh

— American Anglican (@AnglicanCouncil) April 21, 2023

As a former group treasurer for an oil company, Justin is aware of numbers – and those in the Church of England pews had been declining for decades before he became Archbishop. Now the finances of many dioceses are visibly failing, hastened by the pandemic. A national Vision and Strategy has now been brought in, with Strategic Development Funding specifically to redirect resources to fresh ideas. Some have seen this as a threat to the parish system, and the priest and polemicist, Giles Fraser recently reflected he was ‘sick of ten years of managerialism’ describing how he felt morale had plummeted.

Some bishops may feel similarly demoralised – the leaked ‘Bishops and their ministries’ paper last year noted the importance of creating a culture where ‘all bishops feel free to express their views in meetings… rather than deferring to those perceived as more senior in the ‘hierarchy’’. If the bishops feel voiceless, or perhaps powerless, it is difficult to see where the next Archbishop might come from. In Justin’s book on reconciliation he says ‘the use of power almost always leads to the abuse of power’, and he think he has ‘influence, but not power’. Who has the power at present in our Church, and who will have it next? That leaked bishops paper commented that the selection and formation process for bishops was ‘not robust or transparent and is therefore open to ‘political’ manoeuvring’ adding that it ‘may not produce the candidates best equipped for visionary national leadership if such candidates are chosen based on local needs’. Our bench of bishops has changed dramatically over the last decade, as they tend to; what will the next generation of bishops to lead us be like?

With plans to create a centralised body that will concentrate power further, will the bishops have the power to lead like they have in the past? A Church of England National Services (CENS) is planned to support the strategic vision of the national church, support national policy development and engagement, via a single governance board structure. When you centralise governance, you centralise power. In a Church of England that has a devolved and non-centralised ecclesiology, this will be interesting. How will checks and balances be built in, where will thorough scrutiny be seen? Few would doubt that a nettle of needed grasping, to bring efficiency and greater transparency, but will these internal reforms get it right?

As we count down the weeks until the coronation, the Makin review into allegations of abuse carried out by the late John Smyth is now 147 weeks overdue….

Read it all.

What has changed in @churchofengland over the last decade? And what next?

A whistlestop reflection (if that's not an oxymoron!) for @churchnewspaper https://t.co/Kwcn320XBR

— Rebecca (Bex) Chapman (@bexchapman3boys) April 4, 2023

Thirdly, and most fundamentally of all, Bishop Christopher [Cocksworth] admits that the cart was effectively put before the horse. Speaking of the “Pastoral Guidance” the bishops are supposed to be now producing in relation to Prayers of Love and Faith, he writes: “We promised pastoral guidelines on the practical outworking of the provision, with all their complex legal and theological questions, at a later point, rather than offering them alongside the liturgical provision. The result was that the response and prayers raised more questions than they answered…”

In other words, the Bishops came up with the prayers first rather than the theology. But how can you write prayers if you are not sure what the underlying theology is? Not only is it putting the cart before the horse, but arguably the horse has bolted and it is too late to shut the stable door as no-one knows where the stable is anyway. Don’t explore that mixed metaphor too closely but you get the idea…

In other words, the Bishops came up with the prayers first rather than the theology. But how can you write prayers if you are not sure what the underlying theology is? Not only is it putting the cart before the horse, but arguably the horse has bolted and it is too late to shut the stable door as no-one knows where the stable is anyway. Don’t explore that mixed metaphor too closely but you get the idea…

The bishop admits things have been done in the wrong order elsewhere when he lists some of the theological questions still to be answered by the bishops. He says these include: “Is the provision genuinely consistent with the doctrine of the Church of England?” (yes, you read that right!) and “What [are the draft prayers] saying or implying about the permissibility or otherwise of sexual intimacy in relationships of the same sex, and in opposite sex relationships that the Church does not recognize as marriage, and what is its theological case?” So the prayers were written before the answers to the key theological questions on which they rest were considered.

Read it all.

Good grief begins with honest reflection, however difficult.https://t.co/voCNxVJRmM

— Will Briggs (@WillBriggs) February 27, 2023

According to the fourth Mark of Mission, Anglicans are called to ‘transform unjust structures’. This was a reiterated theme of ACC-18, as we lamented the disempowerment of communities and nations through the ongoing repercussions of colonialism and racism. In a compelling reflection, one West Indian delegate began with a rendition of Bob Marley’s famous protest song against the discredited philosophy which holds ‘one race superior, and another inferior’. And yet there is a giant unjust structure staring us in the face – the structure of the Anglican Communion.

Why should England always take first place, in the seat of Anglican power and privilege? Why should the ACC’s president live in a palace by the River Thames, at the heart of the English establishment, and not be an Anglican living by the River Nile, or the Amazon, or the Zambezi, or the Mississippi? This is structural injustice. The president of the Communion, if we need one, should be chosen by the Communion, not preserved as a perpetual English prerogative by divine right. At our sumptuous opening banquet, hosted by the President of Ghana, Archbishop Welby praised Ghana for being one of the first African nations to win its independence from the United Kingdom, in 1957. Yet the Anglican Communion is still living with structures which belong to the 1950s and which should be consigned to history. They are not fit for purpose. Structural transformation is urgent.

The Church of England’s General Synod in July 2022 made a mistake by changing the rules for the Canterbury Crown Nominations Commission, to include five representatives from the global Anglican Communion in choosing the next Archbishop of Canterbury. This is a structural reform in the wrong direction. It makes matters worse, not better. Presented as a magnanimous desire to include global voices, its effect is simply to bolster England’s primacy even further. It is like the strategy of a dying colonial power, faced by growing global unrest, which invites a few of its subjects to London as a last resort, offering them a modest voice in colonial policy. The new Canterbury CNC announces to the world that England comes first in the Anglican Communion, and always will be first. It trumpets our global aspirations. Rather than tinkering with the Canterbury CNC, what the Anglican Communion needs is a far deeper structural change.

These global dynamics were evident at ACC-18 in numerous ways. For example, on the first day of business the Archbishop of Canterbury offered to explain the recent proposals of the English bishops. It was billed as a ‘fringe event’, not part of the official ACC programme, but the room was packed. I encouraged the Lambeth team to broadcast the proceedings, for the sake of transparency, but they chose the opposite policy – the cameras were switched off, the press were expelled, the doors were shut, and we were instructed not to record or transmit what was said. In retrospect, that was probably a wise decision, as the Archbishop has a glorious habit of wandering ‘off message’ when providing unscripted answers to questions. However, after the English presentation there was time for only six short comments from global delegates. In a striking intervention, the Bishop of Valparaiso in Chile (who has given me permission to quote him) suggested that the fringe event itself was an example of ‘neo-colonialism’ – because England had taken 35 minutes speaking from the platform, while Chile was permitted only two minutes to respond from the floor. The bishop lamented, ‘this is a dysfunctional community’.

Read it all.

"For too long, we have stubbornly proclaimed… that the Anglican Communion is ‘one body’… But, counterintuitively, this mantra simply drives us further apart, because it forces provinces to shout more loudly to make their differences heard."https://t.co/YAXGtkbjtF

— Will Briggs (@WillBriggs) February 21, 2023

But is the ABC really surrendering to GAFCON and the GSFA?

Don’t count on it.  Consider what he said in the context of his apparent surrender:

• He will not be dictated to by GAFCON and the GSFA: “I will not cling to place or position. I hold it very lightly, provided that the other Instruments of Communion choose the new shape, that we are not dictated to by people, blackmailed, bribed to do what others want us to do.” In other words, he will reject any solution that is not endorsed by the other failed Instruments of Communion, the most recent of which (The Lambeth Conference of Bishops 2022) he “re-set” to never again express the mind of the Church and its teaching.

• He continues to embrace “pluriform truth” based on interpreting the Bible through the lens of culture: “…we are deeply in disagreement, not through lack of integrity, corruption, lying, or surrendering to the culture, but because we do interpret Scripture differently, we understand the work of the Spirit differently, and we look at these things with different cultural lenses. And are therefore all always wrong to some degree.”
• He continues to champion a process of “good disagreement” and postponement of decision on doctrinal disagreements through the same endless and failed processes employed over the last 25 years.  This is shown through the report of the Inter-Anglican Standing Committee on Unity, Faith, and Order (IASCUFO) to ACC-18 this week which questions whether there is “a single faith and order shared by Anglicans” anymore and instead “affirms the importance of seeking to walk together to the highest degree possible, and learning from our ecumenical conversations how to accommodate disagreement patiently and respectfully.”[https://acc18.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/Reports/en/en_dept_IASCUFO_Good-Differentiation.pdf ]

The American Anglican Council will continue to support the leaders of GAFCON and the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA) as they seek to “re-set” the Anglican Communion in keeping with the GSFA ‘Communique’ following the 2022 Lambeth Conference and the ongoing work of GAFCON.  We will have more to report as details unfold.  Please join us in praying for these faithful, courageous, and resilient leaders!

Read it all.

"The American Anglican Council will continue to support the leaders of GAFCON and the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA)… Please join us in praying for these faithful, courageous, and resilient leaders!"https://t.co/9FmBIIGKdW

— M M (@FrMickM) February 15, 2023

Ian Paul argues that the issue facing the Church of England is ultimately theological and that “there is no institutional unity apart from theological coherence.” He writes:

How can all this be squared with the consistent teaching of Scripture? This cannot be lightly set aside, since Canon A5 delineates our doctrine as being ‘rooted in the Scriptures’, and Article XX of the XXXIX Articles states ‘that it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written.’

Nevertheless, with the passage of clause (g), he thinks the revisionists won at most a “Pyrrhic victory,” as it will force them to explain themselves clearly. Martin Davie goes even further in claiming that “the passage of clause (g) to the Synod motion was a great victory” for traditionalist Anglicans.

I would that Ian Paul and Martin Davie were right, but the lesson I take from the Episcopal Church USA two decades ago is that the addition of clause (g) will not snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Let me explain.

In 1997, I submitted, as part of the discernment process in the Episcopal Church (called “Continuing the Dialogue”), a book-length defense of the traditional doctrine of marriage titled Two Sexes, One Flesh: Why the Church Cannot Bless Same-Sex Marriage (a summary is available online in Theology Matters 6:3 May/June 2000). This book was circulated to all bishops and delegates prior to the 1997 General Convention, as the Church was proposing development of same-sex rites. I received exactly zero theological response at the time, although one bishop took me aside, Nicodemus-like, and said he agreed with me (he later went on to vote with the majority). While the Episcopal Church did not officially approve same-sex rites until 2006, there was clearly no interest in debating further the theology underlying the matter. From their point of view, the “dialogue” was over, and implementation was the only issue going forward.

This is this point concerning clause (g) that I think Martin Davie misconstrues.

Read it all.

On September 30, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain received a rowdy homecoming after signing a peace pact with Nazi Germany….we need Ukraine to win, not to negotiate with the evil empire. pic.twitter.com/WkIaSG5gmL

— Ludwik Klimkowski (@ludwikmoneyweb) February 7, 2023

The Church is at a crossroads. Nothing illustrates that more than Archbishop Steven Kaziimba’s response on behalf of the Church of Uganda to the Church of England’s decision to bless same-sex relationships. In short, the Church of Uganda says, “Just say no.”

Just say no to the leaders of the Church of England, including Archbishop Justin Welby and Archbishop of York, Stephen Cotrell, who tried to convince us there is a distinction between the blessing of a couple and the blessing of their relationship. As Archbishop Kaziimba says so clearly: if it looks like a wedding and sounds like a wedding, it is a wedding.

Just say no to the Church of England’s departure from the Bible and their new message, which is the opposite of the Bible. Instead of calling for repentance, it is blessing sin.

Just say no to going down the suicidal path the Church of England has now taken in following the Episcopal Church by redefining biblical standards for human sexuality, marriage, and leadership in the Church.

Read it all.

Over the centuries, the church of Christ faced many heresies and unbiblical innovations. However, God raised up faithful church leaders to defend the truth and protect the church from losing her vision.

One of these divisive heresies was the Arian heresy. It started in Alexandria in the fourth century. Arius, a priest from Alexandria, developed a thought that denied the full divinity of Jesus Christ. He believed that the Son of God is of a similar, but not of the same, substance as the Father.

Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon Athanasius realized that this heresy contradicts the doctrine of salvation. In response, they stood firm at the council of Nicaea (325 AD), and defeated the Arian heresy. Arius did not give up but he continued to spread his heresy even after Athanasius became the bishop of Alexandria in 328 AD.

Years later, several Emperors adopted the Arian heresy and persecuted and even deposed Bishop Athanasius. He also was exiled five times during his episcopacy and yet he continued to stand against the heresy. Athanasius became known as “Contra Mundum” which means “Against the World “. Without his faithful, bold stance and endurance, the church in Alexandria would have been swept away and disappeared. To the contrary, the truth prevailed and St. Athanasius was welcomed back by his people to his seat in Alexandria.

Today, in this postmodern age, the church is facing a number of innovations and heresies. Examples of these are rejecting the virgin birth of Jesus, denying His resurrection, undermining the authority of the scriptures, and adopting the prevailing morals of the culture. The most widely spread innovations that openly contradict the scripture, the doctrine of creation and church canon law are: same sex unions and same sex marriage. Those who promote these innovations are not content with the recognition of these practices by the civil societies and governments but they want the church to accept and to bless them.

Of course the church should welcome all people of the society without discrimination but it should not welcome all morals and values of the society. Otherwise, the church would lose its distinctive role to care for and guide people to live a righteous life.

In a time like this, the church of Christ needs faithful church leaders who speak the truth boldly; leaders who are happy to pay the price of defending the biblical truth. Yes, the church needs more like St. Athanasius, Contra-Mundum. Indeed, the church needs Bishops who continuously remember their vows to guard the faith at the time of their consecration.

As I am writing this, I received the very sad news that the Church of England passed a motion that allow the blessing of same sex unions. I learned that very few members of the synod spoke against this tragic motion and the majority voted in favor of it. Some members have said that blessing is different from marriage! They forget the fact that blessing is in fact an approval of the thing we bless. In addition, both marriage and the blessing of same sex unions have the same outcome; two people becoming intimately united!

It is sad that church leaders think that they can undo God’s purpose in creation and they can innovate different teaching from the Biblical one. Yes, we need more faithful Contra Mundum.

“In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it” 2 Timothy 3:12-14

The Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Hanna Anis
Archbishop Emeritus
Episcopal / Anglican Province of Alexandria

Interview with Archbishop Mouneer Anis, First Archbishop of the new Anglican Province of Alexandriahttps://t.co/OmR8zmbNgM pic.twitter.com/8MQ4mjGatX

— Anglican Ink (@anglicanink) October 25, 2021

For me, and many other ‘orthodox’ Anglicans in the chamber, one of the most heartening things about the debate was the quality of the contributions from those upholding the current doctrine. I append two at the end of this article. I do think there was a significant contrast with the speeches in support of the motion and rejecting the amendments. A large number of them focussed on the feelings of those affected, especially gay clergy who cannot express their emotional and sexual love as they would wish according to current doctrine. There is no doubt that these feelings need to be attended to—but the question is whether this forms the basis for the Church to determine its understanding of the teaching of Jesus. Other speeches lifted proof texts from Scripture in some bizarre ways—claiming that Jesus’ offer of ‘fulness of life’ must mean that no-one should be denied a sexual relationship, or that Paul’s acceptance of diverse approaches to food meant we could have the same approach to sex and marriage, even though Paul himself did not—or that Gal 3.28 implies that sex differences no longer exist. It is hard to see how any of these arguments could form a part of the bishops’ theological rationale for the Prayers.

One theme mentioned several times was the idea that not being able to marry would consign a person to a lifetime of loneliness. It was rather odd hearing those who reject the doctrine of the Church elevating marriage to such a pinnacle, as if it was the solution to all our problems—and very good to hear several single people saying that this was not true.

Where does this all leave the process and what lies ahead for the House of Bishops? It seems to me that there is more work to do than ever before—and both Synod Questions and the debate has exposed this more starkly than ever. The challenges include:

1. How has the relation of sex and marriage been understood in previous statements?
2. On what grounds could these consistent statements be changed or rejected?
3. How does the Church of England engage with ecumenical statements, especially from the Roman Catholic Church?
4. What are the implications for the Communion?
5. What impact will the perception of what is being proposed have on the Church itself—on mission, church planting, plans for growth, clergy deployment and morale, and our work with young people?
6. If these prayers are commended for use in a church service, in what sense is that not liturgical provision? So how can we avoid needing a two-thirds majority in Synod for their approval?
7. Where did the claimed distinction between marriage and Holy Matrimony come from? How can that be sustained in the light of contrary evidence from all previous statements?
8. Why were the proposals brought under Canon B5 (local use and decision) rather than Canon B2 (national approval), against the obvious legal conclusion, when these are being offered national and commended by the House of Bishops?
9. How could the Pastoral Guidelines allow clergy to enter same-sex marriages, if the doctrine of the Church remains unchanged and ordination vows commit clergy to belief, uphold, teach, and pattern this doctrine in their own lives? How can their be any room for manoeuvre here?
10. In addition, what comments and feedback were given by members of Synod in their reflections, and what difference will that make?
11. In what context will the prayers be offered, with what rubric and introduction?
12. How can all this be squared with the consistent teaching of Scripture? This cannot be lightly set aside, since Canon A5 delineates our doctrine as being ‘rooted in the Scriptures’, and Article XX of the XXXIX Articles states that ‘it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written.’

If this is any kind of ‘victory’ for those who wanted to moved forward, it looks very much like a Pyrrhic victory. ‘If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined’ (Plutarch’s account of Pyrrhus of Epirus).

The motion was passed, with a significant addition which explicitly limits the scope for manoeuvre, so the work will continue. But I think the cost has been immense damage to the reputation and standing of Justin Welby, the final nail in the coffin of the Anglican Communion, damage to ecumenical relations, a further loss of confidence in the leadership of bishops within the Church, and the first signs of fracture at local and diocesans levels. And for what gain?

Read it all.

The Bishops in the Church of England wrote and issued a paper whereby they intend to introduce same-sex blessings services. They are not proposing same-sex weddings (at this stage), but wantng same sex blessing ceremonies. In other words, this change amounts to formally recognising same-sex relationships as a moral and God accepted good and that churches ought to offer services of prayer and blessing for these couples. Not every bishop agrees with the document, but clearly, there is sufficient consensus for its publication and presentation to General Synod for serious consideration.

In what can only be described as a dishonest riff, some Anglican leaders are insisting that the church’s doctrine on marriage isn’t changing…quite literally as they call for changes to the church’s understanding of sex and marriage. The same hypocrisy is being offered up by The Australian Law Reform Commission, albeit a legal entourage rather than a church one. Their recent submission to the Federal Government calls for religious schools to lose their freedom to practice traditional views of sexuality. For example, they are recommending legislation that allows Christian schools to teach a Christian view of sex and marriage, but they may also be required to teach alternate views. They will lose the right to employ staff on the basis of religious convictions. In other words, we’ll tolerate your religion so long as you tell and permit today’s sexology. That’s not compromise, it’s forced capitulation. That’s not co-existing with two unbridgeable views, that’s crossing over and demanding change.

This General Synod is happening on the other side of the world and in a Christian denomination that is different to my own, so why take interest in this debate? This particular case is important for several reasons: 1. I have many friends who pastor or who are members of churches in the Church of England. 2. The very public stature of this denomination (part through age and part through connections to the State) will garner significant media and public attention. 3. The Church of England is part of the worldwide Anglican communion which accounts for 10s million of believers, including Australia. 4. The same revisionist agenda playing out in the Church of England is present here in Australia, including among Baptists.

The flavour of the month is self-expression. In every sphere of life we are told that autonomy and self determination is an absolute, and questioning this ‘reality’ is the gravest of sins. From TikTok to the Bishop of York, the sermon proclaims that an individual’s sexual preferences and gender identity is the most fundamental aspect of reality…with a dash of God apparently giving approval. While this religious message will arouse a clap from the culture’s elites, notice how it doesn’t bring people to the cross or persuade them to follow Jesus and join a local church. What’s the point of Christianity if it does little more than mirror the culture’s messaging?

Read it all.

We do, of course, not live in an heroic age, an age of burning faith, martyrdom and devotion. Rather we live in the great era of spiritual apathy and indifference, interspliced with mad bursts of quasi-religious progressive fanaticism; of mechanism, materialism and utilitarianism; within the church, of the meticulous, supine management of a decay and decline that is seen as inevitable. Given that, it should probably come as no surprise that the sort of bishops we produce are not quite of the nature of Athanasius, Chrysostom or Becket, and are rather more likely to remind us of the deputy regional manager of a chain of supermarkets. Perhaps in some respects that is a good thing: such formidable men were the products of ages more violent, more turbulent and a good deal less comfortable and ‘safe’ than our own. Personally, they were probably incredibly difficult and alarming individuals. If Chrysostom were transplanted to the 21st century, one struggles to see him being offered a column in the Church Times or becoming a regular on ‘Thought for the Day’. He might make us all a bit too uncomfortable.

Nonetheless, it is surely the case that in this kind of shuffling, pusillanimous era we need uncompromising messengers of Gospel truth and orthodoxy, heroic conveyors of inconvenient moral verities, and fiery prophetic voices of doom crying in the wilderness more than ever. Surrender to the secular languages of ‘change management’ and MBA-style jargon, attempting to adapt the spirit of Taylorism and human resource departments to produce spiritual time-and-motion studies, will not make the Church more ‘effective’ or ‘productive’ (whatever that would mean) – it simply reduces its extraordinary, transcendental, urgent message to the level of the quotidian, the utilitarian, the banal. Not only that, but the grasping, instrumentalising spirit of technocracy and managerialism is actively contrary to the spirit of the gospel, which rejects every easy commercial assumption, every sophistical calculation of profit-and-loss, every piece of instrumental rationalisation. We should sell everything we own to possess one pearl and one pearl alone, that of Heaven.

What we need, therefore, are some bishops who defy this spirit, who refuse to conform to the Weberian spirit of the new church bureaucrats, who rattle against the iron cage that Welbyism is creating. The Bishops only emerge from their bureaucratic fortresses nowadays to issue vague, theologically undernourished moral pronouncements on subjects where they know their viewpoint will find approval from their liberal masters. This is not good enough.

Read it all.

Any genuine reform of the Church involves a threefold cord: renewal of faith and mission; reform of doctrine, discipline, and worship; and reordering of church polity at the local, regional and international levels. This pattern was true in ancient Israel, in the early church, and at the Protestant Reformation in Europe and England. The challenge for contemporary Anglicanism is to hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches in the context of Global Anglicanism.

This proposal is offered to and for Gafcon members as they assemble in Kigali in April 2023 and reflects my own focus on the “movement in the Spirit” that took place in Jerusalem in 2008. It is offered as well to the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA), which will meet in 2024. The GSFA is a sister movement with Gafcon, with overlapping memberships and visions. Gafcon has contributed the movement’s best formulary in the Jerusalem Declaration; the Global South Fellowship has approved a Covenant, which can serve as a first step in constituting a new Communion.

A revived, reformed, and reordered Anglican Communion will have no historic see. The choice of Jerusalem for the first Global Anglican Future Conference and subsequent decennial meetings there is a powerful reminder that Jerusalem marks the spot where the Gospel begins – on Calvary – and from where its mission spread from the Day of Pentecost to the ends of the earth. It also reminds us of our eternal destiny, the Jerusalem that is above. The suggestion of a Jerusalem Communion of Global Anglicans is just that, a suggestion (others might suggest Alexandria), but it is a reminder that Anglicanism today is not an English export but a global mission proclaiming an eternal Gospel and an eternal destiny with God.

Read it all.

A look bk to 2019–Stephen Noll–When Is “good Disagreement” Not Good? When It Contradicts God’s Word https://t.co/cSMiOKqYRZ 'The drumbeat for “good disagreement” fills the #Anglican air –+will no doubt become more frenetic as the partial Lambeth 2022 gathering approaches..' TK pic.twitter.com/lCiXIsFVjg

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) July 23, 2022

This year’s Conference was meant to help bring things back together. I observed it only from a distance, but I am aware of the great labor, prayer, and goodwill that went into its preparation (of which I was a part), and of the efforts of many present to be faithful, open, and hopeful. For all my frustrations, I admire the archbishop of Canterbury and the many bishops who worked hard for this affair. But the result simply didn’t add up.

The penny is finally dropping. Anglicans are “irreconcilably ­divided”—that is, their divisions are viewed on all sides as arising from essential commitments, which cannot be compromised. Anglican leaders are finally admitting that these “essential commitments” are tied up with claims about sexual identity and its scriptural (and hence Christian) meaning. Not that most Anglicans did not already know this. But at the public and administrative levels of leadership within the Communion—among bishops and their theological advisors or subalterns—a refrain of the past two decades has insisted on the secondary nature of these differences. Sexuality and its scriptural significance, it was explained, do not touch “core” realities of the gospel; they are “matters indifferent” (adiaphora, in the technical sense of not being doctrinal issues that should divide the church), or, if not quite that, at least matters that can be set aside as we focus on our commonalities and continue to chug along “together.” The Communion could carry on as a Communion, we were told, without resolving the supposedly secondary issues of sex and sexual identity.

It was at best a naive view and at worst a willful refusal to admit the obvious in hopes of maintaining a grip on ecclesiastical power. Though theologians, formal and informal, can argue that this or that matter ought to be adiaphora, the category is in fact purely descriptive. Christians divide over what they think is important, not according to a template devised by scholars. So “sex” is not important? Prove it to the Communion! Opposing sides say otherwise and have proven their commitments through their actions. Confusion, disagreement, and political hostilities over sexuality reflect deep cultural issues that may one day be resolved—but not in the short term, and probably not without the intervention of catastrophic social changes driven by factors other than theological discussion.

The Anglican “Communion,” therefore, is no longer a “communion” in the twentieth-­century sense, a sense that grew out of a nineteenth-century understanding and experience of common Christian mission. There are Anglican leaders who seem quite happy with the fragmentation; indeed, this summer’s Lambeth Conference seemed at times giddy with relief at having left behind the desperate efforts to paper over disunity. But if the Anglican “Communion” is not the Communion of the past, what is it?

First, it is necessary to clarify what else today’s Communion is not and does not do. The Anglican Communion no longer holds a common teaching about the gospel….

Read it all.

The Last Lambeth Conference by Ephraim Radner | Articles | First Things. Is this also the fate of the Catholic Church? https://t.co/viUvNN16Rg

— James Roth (@jrwash1942) September 14, 2022

This puzzle became more complicated recently during Lambeth 2022, which Nigeria…along with the Churches of Uganda and Rwanda [could not attend out of conscientious and theological objection]. Other Global South bishops during Lambeth standoffs with Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby over the status of doctrines on marriage and sex declined to receive Holy Communion with openly gay and lesbian bishops.

“There is a profound asymmetric quality to the Anglican Communion, where the voice of the bulk of its membership is either absent or muted,” said the Rev. David Goodhew of St. Barnabas Church in Middlesborough, England. He is the author of a series of articles about African Anglicanism for Covenant, the blog of “The Living Church,” an independent Anglican publication founded in 1878.

“If one adds up the number of bishops who didn’t share Holy Communion at Lambeth … that is a very large number,” he said. “I have been startled by the number of descriptions that said this Lambeth was a success. I don’t know how one makes that claim when it would appear the bulk of the Anglican Communion’s bishops couldn’t come together to receive Communion. That looks like a disaster.”

Read it all.

The global #Anglican Church continues wrestling with conflict between traditional global south v. progressive global north reports @tweetmattingly in his column @ReligionMaghttps://t.co/Oy19dLrneo @AnglicanEcumen @AnglicanNews @generalsynod @MidwestAnglican @gafconference

— Religion Unplugged (@ReligionMag) August 18, 2022

The Rev. Charlie Bell, author of the book “Queer Holiness,” went further. “The Lambeth Conference has,” tweeted the psychiatrist, a fellow at Girton College, Cambridge, “ended with “a recognition – explicit and implicit – that the acceptance of LGBTQI love and SSM is within the bounds of the communion we share. The Holy Spirit was at work.”

For Global South bishops, all of this showed that Anglicanism “is not in a healthy, working state.” The question is whether brokenness will inspire repentance.

The “revisionist Provinces,” said a GSFA communique, “adapt the Word of God to the prevailing culture … and end up condoning what is morally wrong in God’s eyes. … Failing to correct false teaching is to fail to act in love. Hence, orthodox Bishops are duty-bound to God not to ‘live and let live’ under the guise of simply walking together.”

Thus, Archbishop Justin Badi Arama of South Sudan told journalists: “A communion is where you have one belief, one doctrine and here there is an issue where there are two different doctrines. How can you walk together?”

Read it all.

The Global South Christians still hold to the old-time religion.

Christians in the West have so imbibed secular values and swallowed them whole that they have brainwashed themselves into believing that secular values are Christianity.

They are not.

So what will happen? There is much talk of ‘agreeing to differ’ and ‘two integrities.’ But agreeing to differ is a meaningless term:for to differ is to disagree. And ‘two
integrities’ is a similar absurdity: for integrity means the unity of a single body.

It is fairly obvious to see what the outcome will be when the Lambeth talking shop is over and done with: the Christians will return to Africa and the secularised post-Christian churches in the West will get back to their being…well, secularised post-Christian churches, the transitioning clinics and net-zero.

Read it all (subscription) from the Church of England newspaper, August 5, 2022, page 7.

The rewording is part of their attempt to achieve precisely this end. For them the shift from talking about ‘the mind of the Communion as a whole’ in the original Call to ‘some say, this and others say that’ in the revised version is intended to shift the Call towards the idea that departing from historic position of the churches of the Anglican Communion as Lambeth resolution 1.10 can be acceptable within Anglicanism.

Secondly on the issue of process, the archbishop promises the bishops that their feedback will be ‘submitted to the Chair of the Lambeth Calls Working Group,’ but he leaves unclear what will happen to that feedback subsequently. On such an important and divisive issue, what will happen next ought to have been clearly explained in a way that would give everyone confidence in the integrity of the next step in the process.

Thirdly, in his remarks at the session, he wrongly separates out what resolution 1.10 says about pastoral care from the rest of the resolution. The resolution does say that ‘all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ.’ However, these words have to be read in the context of the resolution’s declaration that ‘in view of the teaching of Scripture,’ the Lambeth conference ‘upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those not called to marriage.’

This context means (a) that being a ‘believing and faithful’ person who belongs to the body of Christ involves accepting the traditional Christian sexual discipline of absolute sexual fidelity within marriage and absolute sexual abstinence outside it, (b) that this discipline applies to all people whatever the nature of their sexual desire and (c) that ministering ‘pastorally and sensitively to all’ has to involve helping everyone to live in the way just described.

Read it all.

All of the archbishops agreed that the number one problem leaving LC2022 is the unresolved divisions between Anglicans who follow what the Bible says plainly about human identity, human dignity, creation, marriage, and sexuality— and those Anglican who do not. They are disappointed by the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury who tolerates sin (“he will not call sin, sin”) and will not discipline it. They are frustrated that the Communion structures failed to provide any mechanism for addressing disobedience to Anglian teaching, and specifically Lambeth 1.10 (1998) in what is certainly an “ecclesial deficit”. Even though these Global South Anglicans represent the overwhelming majority of Anglicans, they feel themselves a minority, “a faithful remnant” because of the power imbalance that western and largely white Global North Anglicans exercise over them through the structures and processes hedging this Lambeth…[gathering] of Bishops. After the failure to even vote on the authority of Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (1998), for which they came to make a stand, they feel the rest of the program of bible study, fellowship, and “sharing of points of view” is meaningless. They affirm that they may be gathered together, “but we are not walking together,” no matter how many times the Archbishop of Canterbury proclaims otherwise.

The Bible is not the ultimate authority in this Anglican Communion gathering. Western Anglican leaders here have interpreted the Bible by reading it through their own culture (eisegesis) rather than reading it in its plain and grammatical sense, understanding its words in the context of the whole of scripture and then applying it to the culture in which one lives (exegesis). As one archbishop says, “We cannot mix culture with Christianity; we must separate culture from Christianity and then let the Bible speak to the culture.” In the words of para 1.5 of the Cairo Covenant (2019): “The authority of the Scripture is its Spirit-bestowed capacity to quicken the Church to truthful speech and righteous action. We reject therefore the hermeneutical scepticism that commits the Church to a near-infinite deferral of decisions on matters of faith and morals.”

Read it all.

Canon Phil shares the voices of three Global South bishops who bring encouragement to @The_ACNA and faithful #Anglicans everywhere. "It was a picture of the face of this new faithful remnant emerging within the Anglican Communion."https://t.co/DnnxfpYvQZ

— American Anglican (@AnglicanCouncil) August 5, 2022

At almost the same time, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA) released statements on Lambeth Resolution 1.10. Both could not have been more different in tone.

Canterbury released a letter to those at Lambeth stating that the Anglican Communion did, in fact, affirm Resolution 1.10. He even writes that the fact that Lambeth Calls: Human Dignity quotes the resolution three times should be enough to show that this is true. What he doesn’t say is that the part of the resolution that affirms the traditional view of marriage and human sexuality was unceremoniously removed from the Call after causing liberal backlash. It is evident he is trying to appease Global South leaders and progressive leaders at the same time. Welby provides only a half-hearted endorsement, for he goes on to say, “other provinces have blessed and welcomed same sex union/marriage, after careful theological reflection and a process of reception.” Does this mean that those who refuse to accept Lambeth 1.10 hold an equally plausible view supported by reasoned theology and careful consideration? Do those who affirm the orthodox view therefore have none of that?

Not surprisingly, Welby concludes his convoluted letter with a plea for further unity, writing, “What is also clear is that Lambeth 1.10 itself continues to be a source of pain, anxiety and contention among us…To be reconciled to one another across such divides is not something we can achieve by ourselves.” He then adds a plea for leaders to turn to Christ, who can heal our divisions, and yet, isn’t it precisely the nature of Christ and what He requires from us that is in contention? Each faction believes they are following Christ. Can this division really be healed through such superficial well-wishes but no real action?

In contrast, today’s GSFA resolution was an exercise in extreme clarity.

Read it all.

Can we please just be clear that what impacts all has to be decided by all, all the pretending notwithstanding. The Anglican Communion is in broken communion as illustrated by those who are not present at the partial Lambeth gathering, and impaired communion with those present as illustrated by those who are not receiving in 2022.

This gathering isn’t deciding anything for Anglicans, nor is the present situation in the globe for Anglicans being shown by its discussions, etc, KSH.

The decision announced Friday that the Global South bishops will sit during Holy Communion during all of Lambeth’s Eucharistic services sent shock waves through the Anglican Twitterverse. It was bold. It was clear. It was divisive. But is division truly a bad thing? It is often assumed that it is, in all forms and at all times. To say it can actually be good is controversial. Archbishop Justin Welby stated at Lambeth that “division doesn’t matter,” that essentially, you can disagree and yet still be united. At other times he called division downright unacceptable and wrong. But the scriptures and reason point to the reality that often division, if not an end in and of itself, is good if it leads to a greater good: true unity.

This true unity is both created by and expressed through Holy Communion. It is a unity set in “one faith, one Lord, one baptism.” Certainly Abp. Welby would say all these things are true of the various churches together at Lambeth, that Communion should be taken by all because, despite our disagreements, we do share one faith, we do have one Lord. But can those bishops who worship with Muslims or engage in pagan ceremonies or deny the physical resurrection of Christ be said to worship the same Lord as those who hold to a biblically orthodox view of God? Or can those who deny the validity of the Scriptures or the Creed or who allow for sexual immorality in the Church be said to hold the same faith as those who continue in orthodox dogma and praxis? Reason would say no. At times one has to wonder how much reason is left in Canterbury.

If our faith can be expressed only by the most minimal of qualifications, what was the point of synods and councils in the Church’s past? Why all the effort? Would Sts. Peter and James have had to facilitate a disagreement between Jews and Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem? Why wouldn’t St. Paul simply accept Judaizers along with orthodox Christians, saying that, though they believed different things, they were really all one? What was the point of the Ecumenical Councils? Should the Arians and the orthodox simply have communed together? After all, both parties called Jesus “Lord.” They both believed He was divine. They just disagreed on how divine he really was.

Read it all.

"Today in Canterbury, we may be ‘gathered together’, but we most certainly cannot ‘walk together’ until provinces which have gone against Scripture-and the will of the consensus of the bishops-repent and return to orthodoxy." Abp Badi: https://t.co/9qDXlJ2RPX#LambethConference pic.twitter.com/PbguW7OMDy

— Lambeth '22 Resource Group (@LCResourceGroup) July 30, 2022

Archbishop Badi clearly stated: “The Communion is not well, and it needs surgery.” Their request to present their own resolution, along with the refusal to take Communion with unrepentant and false teachers, is the beginning of surgery, finally necessary for such a time as this. It is a last attempt to call the Church to repentance from teachings and practices contrary to the Bible, its clarity, and its authority. The Global South bishops share an understanding that the most important issue today is the need to reach the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, a whole Gospel for a whole person. This whole Gospel mission rests on the clarity and authority of the Bible for all Anglicans everywhere. The significance of reaffirming Lambeth 1.10 (1998) is nothing less than the reaffirmation of the authority of Scripture as the basis for everything in the Communion: faith, order, and mission.

The Lambeth Calls confusion, the elephant in the room of missing bishops, the broken Communion: these are the symptoms of a house divided, of two faces of Anglicanism, two Communions. In one Communion is loyalty to the idea of a messy family complete with infighting and divisions that must be expected, tolerated, and even welcomed. In the other is a vision for a family that strives to “be of one mind,” while doing the hard work of truly disagreeing, discussing, and above all praying for repentance and transformation. This family is a communion of churches held together on the basis of faithfulness to the one Father in Heaven, His Word, and all that He reveals about creation, humanity, and the freedom found in Jesus Christ alone.

Read it all.

“For too long the Anglican Communion has been driven by the views of the West. We often feel that our voice is not listened to or respected." Archbishop Justin Badi in GSFA’s announcement today: https://t.co/9qDXlJ2RPX #Lambethconference #LambethConference2022 pic.twitter.com/ZEkcMYv5BB

— Lambeth '22 Resource Group (@LCResourceGroup) July 29, 2022

My first real engagement with the Anglican Communion began 20 years ago this month when Wycliffe Hall, where I was a relatively new tutor in ethics, held a conference on the Future of Anglicanism. Following a call there from the then Primate of the West Indies, Drexel Gomez, I subsequently co-authored with Peter Walker, and the assistance of many readers, a contribution which we entitled True Union in the Body?. It sought to explore questions about sexuality (defending Lambeth I.10) and how to handle our differences over this (proposing as Windsor later did a moratorium and warning, sadly accurately, of the dangers if this was not implemented).

That title was purposefully a play on the language of “the body”. To an extent I had not then fully realised, it was the start of a conviction that these two question of the nature of true union in our created physical bodies (sexuality) and the nature of true union in the body of Christ (ecclesiology) are, in the travails of the Anglican Communion, themselves united to each other. When they gathered in 2008, the bishops of the Communion had a framework to help them seek to find a way forward but the details of that failed to be accepted. In 2016, the Primates of the Communion charted an alternative way forward, consistent with that framework. Now, in 2022, the bishops gathering at Lambeth have not been asked to work with that framework and the current calls appear to direct the Communion in totally the opposite direction.

There is the real risk that the tear in the fabric of the Communion which the Primates in 2003 rightly warned would happen, may now become even greater and finally rip the Communion into two separate, distinct ecclesial communions. We can only hope and pray that, as the bishops gather and pray and study Scripture and discuss, mindful that over 200 of their fellow bishops of the Communion (whose convictions on these matters are well known and so can be factored into the Lambeth deliberations) are already significantly separated, they will address honestly and theologically their differences over both sexuality and ecclesiology and be willing to be led by the Spirit rather than to continue to grieve the Spirit.

Read it all.

The Call on Human Dignity is right to declare that ‘acts and attitudes against the dignity of God’s children are sin.’ [10] However, the Call is also problematic both in what it says and in what it does not say.

It is problematic in what it says because, as before, it takes an entirely negative view of the colonial legacy, failing to acknowledge that there are positive as well as negative aspects to it. It calls for the establishment of a Commission for Redemptive Action to shape the response of the Church Commissioners and the Communion as a whole to the historic issues of colonialism and slavery, but it does not give any explanation of why such a commission is necessary or what it is meant to achieve.

What precisely is ‘redemptive action’? We are not told. If it means that the Church Commissioners should pay reparations (to whom and on what basis?) then it should say so. It calls for Anglicans to lobby for ‘social protection measures’[11] but does not explain what these are. It suggests that the work of the ACC on promoting human dignity in relation to gender should be extended to cover sexuality, but it doesn’t say what this would mean in practice and the danger is that this could be used as a cover for encouraging the acceptance of same-sex relationships.

It is problematic in what it does not say in that although it acknowledges Lambeth 1.10 as ‘the mind of the Communion as a whole’[12] it fails to say that therefore provinces should act in accordance with it, or that where they have failed to act in accordance with it, they need to repent and seek to rectify the situation. It is also problematic in that it fails to say that the dignity of the human person exists from the moment of conception and that therefore abortion should never be viewed as a legitimate form of birth control, and in that fails to note that God’s creation of human beings as male and female means that gender transition is an act of rebellion against God that the Church should not support or give liturgical recognition to, even while offering love and support to the persons concerned.

Read it all.

Finally, the Rev. Dr. Brett Cane, a Canadian Anglican serving in Egypt, has written an article on “Biblical Perspectives on Staying in Fellowship.” Having noted Paul’s exhortation to seek the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace and Jesus’ parable of the wheat and tares and His prayer for unity (Ephesians 4:1-4; Matthew 13:24-30,36-43; John 17:20-23), Dr. Cane concludes:

It is often uncomfortable to be in fellowship with those with whom we disagree… From my perspective, liberals are good at asking questions – conservatives are not. In that sense, Jesus was a true liberal in relationship to the religious establishment of his time. However, Jesus was deeply rooted in the Scriptures and was able to give answers. In my opinion, that is why the liberal needs the conservative – to give answers from a Biblical perspective. We need one another; we need to stay in fellowship.

Is it really true that conservatives are not liberal? In the pre-Gafcon book The Way, the Truth and the Life, we wrote:

Besides its emphasis on the Gospel, Evangelical Anglicanism has another side: a spirit of liberality… Liberality of spirit characterizes the Anglican via media approach to doctrinal, liturgical and pastoral matters, which seeks to be firm in matters of salvation and modest with regard to secondary or ‘indifferent’ matters (adiaphora). Going back to John Jewell and Richard Hooker, this “sweet reasonableness” (Titus 3:2) has been a hallmark of Anglican writers, with George Herbert, C.S. Lewis, and John Stott being prime examples. (page 36)

By contrast, my experience of contemporary liberals is that they are supremely illiberal. Take the example of the Episcopal Church USA and Anglican Church of Canada. Having been warned by the Lambeth Conference in 1998 not to proceed with homosexual ordinations and same-sex unions, they bulldozed their way ahead, reducing the Communion to rubble. And now various other “liberal” churches are following suit, with the Church of England not far behind. Does anyone really imagine that as a result of weeks-long indaba at Lambeth 2020, the “liberals” will listen to the conservative answers from Scripture? Is there any way “liberals” will come to one mind with Richard Hooker when he says: “what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit [faith] and obedience is due”? The Bishop of Bangor is a case in point.

In a recent collection of essays titled Good Disagreement: Grace and Truth in a Divided Church, two Anglican New Testament scholars examine the way in which Jesus and the apostolic church dealt with controversy and division. Dr. Michael Thompson explains that Jesus’ own teaching and ministry caused a “tear” in the garment of Judaism and a “sword” splitting families apart: “there is no indication that Jesus sought deliberately to divide his hearers; it was the inevitable result of a message which some joyfully accepted but others rejected or simply did not understand” (page 44). One might say that “grace” and “truth” are not really opposites: the Good News of God’s grace and truth in Jesus causes some to turn to the light and others to hold fast to the darkness (John 3:17-21).

Dr. Thompson points to texts in which Jesus warns against judging one another (Matthew 7:1) and others where He insists on church discipline (Matthew 18:15-18). He goes on to consider texts in which, on the one hand, the apostles warn against factions in the church (e.g., 1 Corinthians 1-3), while on the other hand they condemn false teachers (2 Peter 2).

Thompson notes in conclusion that the apostles excluded individuals and not entire congregations. I do not think this is quite right. The early church was not an institution in the modern sense but a fellowship recognized by the apostles and their successors. Hence St. John can declare concerning a heretical faction: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19).

The Gafcon and Global South movements have warned repeatedly concerning a false Gospel in the Episcopal Church and others. Unfortunately, since the formal “Instruments of Communion” have failed to deal with this “leaven of the Pharisees,” it has infected the entire communion. Hence Gafcon has stated: “We are not leaving the Anglican Communion; we are the majority of the Anglican Communion seeking to remain faithful to our Anglican heritage.”

Read it all.

"Trinity and the Renewal Movement" by the Rev. Dr. Stephen Noll, from our Spring/Summer issue of Seed & Harvest magazine. https://t.co/k4fgmWVtY0#TrinitySchoolforMinistry #SeedandHarvest pic.twitter.com/SswxxwVbRf

— Trinity School for Ministry (@TS4Ministry) June 11, 2020

It has been suggested that the shift from resolutions to Calls is intended to retrospectively downplay the authority of resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference. I do not know if that is what the change of name is intended to achieve. However, if it is, then neither the archbishop’s video nor the accompanying leaflet achieve this purpose effectively. This is because it has never been held by any well-informed Anglican that resolution 1.10 was legally binding in the sense of being automatically legally enforceable in terms of the Canon law of the individual provinces of the Anglican Communion. As noted above, no Lambeth Conference resolution has ever possessed this kind of authority. In that sense it is correct to say that resolution 1.10 does not ‘order people about.’

However, this does not mean that the resolution does not possess authority. It does possess binding authority in two ways.

First, as an unrepealed and unreplaced Lambeth resolution, it possesses binding moral authority as a decision made by the bishops of the Anglican Communion meeting together in council as the senior leaders of their churches.

Secondly, it possesses binding theological authority because what it says is theologically correct and Anglicans, just like all other Christians, have an obligation to shape their thinking and their actions in the light of what is theologically correct.

The encyclical letter sent out by the bishops of the Lambeth Conference of 1920 declares, in words which have become famous among students of Anglicanism:

‘For half a century the Lambeth Conference has more and more served to focus the experience and counsels of our Communion. But it does not claim to exercise any powers of control or command. It stands for the far more spiritual and more Christian principle of loyalty to the fellowship. The Churches represented in it are indeed independent, but independent with the Christian freedom which recognizes the restraints of truth and of love. They are not free to deny the truth. They are not free to ignore the fellowship.‘[6]

The reason Anglicans are not free to reject resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference is because Anglicans are not free ‘to deny the truth’ or ‘to ignore the fellowship’ (ignoring the fellowship involving among other things rejecting joint decisions properly arrived at by the bishops of the Communion). Nothing said in the archbishop’s video or in the accompanying leaflet changes that fact.

Read it all.

The unanimous decision announced on April 20, 2022 by the South Carolina Supreme Court fulfilled (by its unanimity) at least one of the predictions made in the previous post on this blog after the oral arguments last December. Unanimity, however, in this instance served not to resolve thorny issues of South Carolina law, but rather sent a strong signal that the collective Justices were circling their wagons around their own, in a somewhat transparent attempt to recover the Court’s dignity lost in the fiasco created by its disgraceful disunity in 2017.

The result (reached by implicit design) can, alas, bring peace to neither of the litigating factions. Applying extremely arbitrary criteria of its own devising, the Court decided that of the twenty-nine individual parishes before it, fourteen (by the documents they adopted) allowed the nationwide trust specified in the Dennis Canon to be applied to their properties, while fifteen did not. The hair-splitting on display here is best illustrated by the following passage from footnote 12 of the main opinion by Justice Few:

The analysis of whether Holy Cross, Stateburg satisfied the second element discussed above—intent to create a trust—is the same as our analysis for St. Paul’s, Bennettsville, but the outcome of the case for the two Parishes is different. This is because Holy Cross, Stateburg took affirmative present action in its 2011 Bylaws to “accede[] to the . . . Canons of the [National Church],” but St. Paul’s, Bennettsville merely stated it was “organized under” and “subject to” the Canons.

This strained construction transforms the English word “accede” (“join in, agree and consent to”) into a poison pill that forever dooms the property of the parish using it to belong to the national Church rather than to the parish itself and its members — the latter are entitled to make use of their own property only for as long as they agree to remain with the sinking ecclesiastical shipwreck that is the current Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

The construction has acquired its severity by a questionable legerdemain performed by Justice Few and his colleagues.

Read it all.

A Pastoral Letter To The Clergy And People Of The #Anglican Diocese Of South Carolina in the light of today's #SouthCarolina Supreme Court ruling https://t.co/v6zbK37lCk #law #history #parishministry #religion #lowcountrylife pic.twitter.com/YF8TGr2604

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) April 20, 2022

We could, like the Methodist Church has recently done, simply extend our current practical incoherence into our teaching. We could move to a position where, as a church, we state that we uphold and support contradictory teachings. This would also fail to address either problem and appears to ignore Jesus’ stark warning later in Matthew (and also in Mark and Luke) that “if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand”.

We could, and should, through the LLF discernment process, make one more attempt to see whether we really can find some agreement as to what would be the rock on which we should be building, whether something that has not previously been recognised by the church as rock might nevertheless be a solid foundation we can all recognise as faithful to Jesus.

It may though be that, lamenting our lack of common mind, and renewing our commitment to keep seeking such a common mind, we have to begin to consider seriously what changes our collective double-mindedness renders necessary in how we structure our common life. How can we create sufficient space or distance to enable each view to find expression in an episcopal structure which has some form of agreed teaching that in turn authorises consistent practice and so has intellectual and moral integrity without generating the level of conflict now sadly so common? How can we allow each group of Anglicans to build on what they believe to be the rock and to avoid building on what they believe to be sand?

Because we are here dealing with competing and contradictory visions of faithfulness to Christ, of the holiness to which we are called in Christ, of our created human nature, and of the ground on which we are to build communities of disciples, this is a much greater challenge than that we have faced and struggled with in relation to women priests and bishops. And because our received ecclesial structures are those of episcopacy within a geographically ordered national church and a global Communion this is a much greater challenge than the ecclesial questions faced by the URC and Baptists and others with a different church structure. The sad history of Anglican provinces and the Anglican Communion over the last 20 years confirms how great a challenge it is. But it is a challenge which we must perhaps now face and, as far as possible, face and seek to resolve together, across our differences.

Read it all.

‘Can ⁦@churchofengland⁩ ever bridge its differences on #sexuality?’ Worth reading this article ⁦@goddardaj⁩ @Psephizo website. https://t.co/sN5PvPgGJZ

— Graham Kings (@GrahamRKings) February 2, 2022

We have come through the initial phase of a new Reformation: the recovery of essential truths. But we are tired. Like Luther after his trials were over, like the Church of England after the reign of “Bloody Mary” was ended, we are tired. We have entered the “Elizabethan Settlement” phase of this new Reformation. It remains to be seen how the compromises will be worked out in the interest of comprehension and catholic unity. When challenges come to this endeavor, we must pray for God’s protection and blessing on His Church and the renewal of our hearts, and minds, and strength by the power of God’s Holy Spirit.

And when the temporal leadership and institutions of Anglicanism sometimes fail us, I am still inspired by these words from Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher who said that Anglicanism “has a special responsibility at this time in the world. We have no doctrine of our own—we only possess the Catholic doctrine of the Catholic Church enshrined in the Catholic creeds, and those creeds we hold without addition or diminution. We stand firm on that rock. We know how to bring to bear on our Christian devotion and creed all the resources of charity and reason and human understanding submitted to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So we have a freedom and embrace a faith which, in my belief, represents the Christian faith in a purer form than can be found in any other Church in Christendom.”

Archbishop Fisher concluded, “That is not a boast. It is a reminder to us of the immense treasure that is committed to our charge — the immense responsibility on us in these days to maintain unshaken those common traditions that we have inherited from those who have gone before us.”

May God confirm these words and the love of the Church of which they speak to our hearts and minds, through the power of the Holy Spirit, for Jesus’ sake. Amen.

Read it all.

So, we have a situation where a Church of England chaplain, who must have held a licence from the Bishop of Derby, has been reported to the police (though they did not pursue it) for articulating the possibility of believing in something which is the current doctrine of the Church of England, and has been made redundant subsequently, which he believes to have been discriminatory and unfair. What would we hope that leaders of the Church of England might say publicly in support of him and his ministry? What might they say to other clergy who could be in a similar challenging situation? What resources could the national Education department have made available to give guidance to chaplains and Christian teachers in schools using the Educate and Celebrate material?

Answer came there ‘None’.

Yesterday, the Daily Mail reported on the case, and reported that Andrea Williams, of Christian Concern, approached Libby Lane, the bishop of Derby, as well as the office of both the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, for comment. Libby Lane was reported as saying:

Public statements in support of one side in a dispute, prior to the evidence emerging in legal proceedings, is neither in the interests of good legal process nor, indeed, likely to serve Dr Randall’s personal interests well.

York said that there is nothing to add, and Canterbury (in the absence of Justin Welby on sabbatical) said ‘No comment.’

I find that extremely odd. I don’t see how difficult it would be to say something like ‘We cannot comment on this particular case. But we support him in his ministry, and he was, of course, quite right to tell pupils that they can believe in the doctrine of the Church of England.’ The initial talk was in June 2019—nearly two years ago. People have had two years to make a comment, and a clear 18 months before this case was brought.

And I don’t need to take the Daily Mail’s word for the story, because Bernard contacted me himself, in June 2019, to check what he was planning to say, and whether it was a fair expression of Christian faith and Church of England doctrine. I affirmed that it was. And I have therefore also offered an ‘expert witness’ statement for the court case being led by Christian Legal Centre on Bernard’s behalf.

Read it all.

New post: Does the Church of England deserve to survive? https://t.co/GhsjTSG6jH

— Dr Ian Paul (@Psephizo) May 17, 2021