Update: For the record, this was approved, as written, by the GAFCON delegates in their final plenary session this morning, Sunday June 29th. The final official version of the Communique can be read online at the GAFCON site here. Or keep reading below.
(Please read it thoroughly and post comments which respond to the actual language of the text of the Communique itself–KSH).
(Also note, there was confusion about when this was cleared for release but now that it is all over the blogosphere and the Internet I have no choice but to put it out there. There is an important textual correction in the final version which comes with the phrase” Encourage the GAFCON Primates to form a Council”in the first section–KSH).
STATEMENT ON THE GLOBAL ANGLICAN FUTURE
Praise the LORD!
It is good to sing praises to our God; for he is gracious, and a song of praise is fitting. The LORD builds up Jerusalem; he gathers the outcasts of Israel. (Psalm 147:1-2) Brothers and Sisters in Christ: We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, send you greetings from Jerusalem!
Introduction
The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), which was held in Jerusalem from 22-29 June 2008, is a spiritual movement to preserve and promote the truth and power of the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ as we Anglicans have received it. The movement is global: it has mobilised Anglicans from around the world. We are Anglican: 1148 lay and clergy participants, including 291 bishops representing millions of faithful Anglican Christians. We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it. And we believe that, in God’s providence, Anglicanism has a bright future in obedience to our Lord’s Great Commission to make disciples of all nations and to build up the church on the foundation of biblical truth (Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 2:20).
GAFCON is not just a moment in time, but a movement in the Spirit, and we hereby:
– launch the GAFCON movement as a fellowship of confessing Anglicans
– publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of the fellowship
– Encourage the GAFCON Primates to form a Council.
The Global Anglican Context
The future of the Anglican Communion is but a piece of the wider scenario of opportunities and challenges for the gospel in 21st century global culture. We rejoice in the way God has opened doors for gospel mission among many peoples, but we grieve for the spiritual decline in the most economically developed nations, where the forces of militant secularism and pluralism are eating away the fabric of society and churches are compromised and enfeebled in their witness. The vacuum left by them is readily filled by other faiths and deceptive cults. To meet these challenges will require Christians to work together to understand and oppose these forces and to liberate those under their sway. It will entail the planting of new churches among unreached peoples and also committed action to restore authentic Christianity to compromised churches.
The Anglican Communion, present in six continents, is well positioned to address this challenge, but currently it is divided and distracted. The Global Anglican Future Conference emerged in response to a crisis within the Anglican Communion, a crisis involving three undeniable facts concerning world Anglicanism. The first fact is the acceptance and promotion within the provinces of the Anglican Communion of a different ”˜gospel’ (cf. Galatians 1:6-8) which is contrary to the apostolic gospel. This false gospel undermines the authority of God’s Word written and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the author of salvation from sin, death and judgement. Many of its proponents claim that all religions offer equal access to God and that Jesus is only a way, not the way, the truth and the life. It promotes a variety of sexual preferences and immoral behaviour as a universal human right. It claims God’s blessing for same-sex unions over against the biblical teaching on holy matrimony. In 2003 this false gospel led to the consecration of a bishop living in a homosexual relationship.
The second fact is the declaration by provincial bodies in the Global South that they are out of communion with bishops and churches that promote this false gospel. These declarations have resulted in a realignment whereby faithful Anglican Christians have left existing territorial parishes, dioceses and provinces in certain Western churches and become members of other dioceses and provinces, all within the Anglican Communion. These actions have also led to the appointment of new Anglican bishops set over geographic areas already occupied by other Anglican bishops. A major realignment has occurred and will continue to unfold. The third fact is the manifest failure of the Communion Instruments to exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy. The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada, in proclaiming this false gospel, have consistently defied the 1998 Lambeth statement of biblical moral principle (Resolution 1.10). Despite numerous meetings and reports to and from the ”˜Instruments of Unity,’ no effective action has been taken, and the bishops of these unrepentant churches are welcomed to Lambeth 2008. To make matters worse, there has been a failure to honour promises of discipline, the authority of the Primates’ Meeting has been undermined and the Lambeth Conference has been structured so as to avoid any hard decisions. We can only come to the devastating conclusion that ”˜we are a global Communion with a colonial structure’. Sadly, this crisis has torn the fabric of the Communion in such a way that it cannot simply be patched back together. At the same time, it has brought together many Anglicans across the globe into personal and pastoral relationships in a fellowship which is faithful to biblical teaching, more representative of the demographic distribution of global Anglicanism today and stronger as an instrument of effective mission, ministry and social involvement.
A Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, are a fellowship of confessing Anglicans for the benefit of the Church and the furtherance of its mission. We are a fellowship of people united in the communion (koinonia) of the one Spirit and committed to work and pray together in the common mission of Christ. It is a confessing fellowship in that its members confess the faith of Christ crucified, stand firm for the gospel in the global and Anglican context, and affirm a contemporary rule, the Jerusalem Declaration, to guide the movement for the future. We are a fellowship of Anglicans, including provinces, dioceses, churches, missionary jurisdictions, para-church organisations and individual Anglican Christians whose goal is to reform, heal and revitalise the Anglican Communion and expand its mission to the world. Our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion. We, together with many other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed in these words: The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it. While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Building on the above doctrinal foundation of Anglican identity, we hereby publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of our fellowship. Global Anglican Future Statement, 29 June 2008 3 The Jerusalem Declaration In the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit: We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, have met in the land of Jesus’ birth. We express our loyalty as disciples to the King of kings, the Lord Jesus. We joyfully embrace his command to proclaim the reality of his kingdom which he first announced in this land. The gospel of the kingdom is the good news of salvation, liberation and transformation for all. In light of the above, we agree to chart a way forward together that promotes and protects the biblical gospel and mission to the world, solemnly declaring the following tenets of orthodoxy which underpin our Anglican identity.
1. We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because God first loved us, we love him and as believers bring forth fruits of love, ongoing repentance, lively hope and thanksgiving to God in all things.
2. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.
3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.
5. We gladly proclaim and submit to the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, humanity’s only Saviour from sin, judgement and hell, who lived the life we could not live and died the death that we deserve. By his atoning death and glorious resurrection, he secured the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith.
6. We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.
7. We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.
8. We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.
9. We gladly accept the Great Commission of the risen Lord to make disciples of all nations, to seek those who do not know Christ and to baptise, teach and bring new believers to maturity.
10. We are mindful of our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation, to uphold and advocate justice in society, and to seek relief and empowerment of the poor and needy.
11. We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration.
12. We celebrate the God-given diversity among us which enriches our global fellowship, and we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters. We pledge to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us.
13. 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.
14. We rejoice at the prospect of Jesus’ coming again in glory, and while we await this final event of history, we praise him for the way he builds up his church through his Spirit by miraculously changing lives.
The Road Ahead
We believe the Holy Spirit has led us during this week in Jerusalem to begin a new work. There are many important decisions for the development of this fellowship which will take more time, prayer and deliberation.
Among other matters, we shall seek to expand participation in this fellowship beyond those who have come to Jerusalem, including cooperation with the Global South and the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa. We can, however, discern certain milestones on the road ahead. Primates’ Council We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, do hereby acknowledge the participating Primates of GAFCON who have called us together, and encourage them to form the initial Council of the GAFCON movement. We look forward to the enlargement of the Council and entreat the Primates to organise and expand the fellowship of confessing Anglicans. We urge the Primates’ Council to authenticate and recognise confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and congregations and to encourage all Anglicans to promote the gospel and defend the faith. We recognise the desirability of territorial jurisdiction for provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion, except in those areas where churches and leaders are denying the orthodox faith or are preventing its spread, and in a few areas for which overlapping jurisdictions are beneficial for historical or cultural reasons. We thank God for the courageous actions of those Primates and provinces who have offered orthodox oversight to churches under false leadership, especially in North and South America. The actions of these Primates have been a positive response to pastoral necessities and mission opportunities. We believe that such actions will continue to be necessary and we support them in offering help around the world.
We believe this is a critical moment when the Primates’ Council will need to put in place structures to lead and support the church. In particular, we believe the time is now ripe for the formation of a province in North America for the federation currently known as Common Cause Partnership to be recognised by the Primates’ Council.
Conclusion: Message from Jerusalem
We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, were summoned by the Primates’ leadership team to Jerusalem in June 2008 to deliberate on the crisis that has divided the Anglican Communion for the past decade and to seek direction for the future. We have visited holy sites, prayed together, listened to God’s Word preached and expounded, learned from various speakers and teachers, and shared our thoughts and hopes with each other.
The meeting in Jerusalem this week was called in a sense of urgency that a false gospel has so paralysed the Anglican Communion that this crisis must be addressed. The chief threat of this dispute involves the compromising of the integrity of the church’s worldwide mission. The primary reason we have come to Jerusalem and issued this declaration is to free our churches to give clear and certain witness to Jesus Christ.
It is our hope that this Statement on the Global Anglican Future will be received with comfort and joy by many Anglicans around the world who have been distressed about the direction of the Communion. We believe the Anglican Communion should and will be reformed around the biblical gospel and mandate to go into all the world and present Christ to the nations.
Jerusalem
Feast of St Peter and St Paul 29 June 2008
Praise God for such faithful clarity! God bless all those who prayerfully participated in this historic session. Alleluia, the Lord is Risen indeed!
http://www.vermontanglicans.org
No question in my mind who we are…and who “they” are. Choose this day!!
Intercessor
1) Critical, it seems to me, will be the wise prosecution of this statement: “we shall seek to expand participation in this fellowship beyond those who have come to Jerusalem, including cooperation with the Global South and the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa.”
2) I also wonder that the primary guiding force coming out of GAFCON is the Primates’ Council. This would seem to keep Peter Jensen out of the loop for now. One would guess that Bob Duncan will join the Council once the North American Province is recognized and he is formally made its Primate.
3) I note with interest point #4 of the Jerusalem Declaration – will that block out Anglo-Catholics? Also I wonder at how the description of GAFCON as a “confessing” movement will affect its inter-AC growth.
I was ordained 38 yars ago and each and every day since I have longed to see something like this from the Anglican Communion. I spent most of my ministry being a “suspect” Anglican. No longer, thank God almighty! No longer, thank God almighty! Praise the Lord! Amen and Amen!
The primates involved would be as follows, right? Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, West Africa, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Southern Cone. And likely soon to be joined by North America????
This is an exciting document! I am more encouraged and hopeful then I’ve been re: the future for a revived Anglicanism than I’ve been in many years. Truly it seems miraculous to get this kind of agreement and substance in such a short time frame. Wow!
Some of the things that struck me:
1) I was surprised at the mention of the 39 articles in the Jerusalem Declaration given possible concerns of Anglo Catholics. (I remember Brad Drell’s blogging from a TEC Province VII gathering and the discussion about 39 articles there. Province VII includes (or should I make that “used to include?!”) Fort Worth and +Iker.) So, I am surprised +Iker et al would support this language. I don’t think we’ve heard the last of this yet. I seem to recall some blogger from Jerusalem talking about a possible “updating” of the Articles. I think that might be a very good idea.
2) I think a huge test of whether this will really have momentum will be the Tues. meeting at All Souls Langham. There’s got to be some serious rank & file support from CoE evangelicals for this to really mean anything, I think. Let’s keep that in prayer with the same fervency we’ve been praying for GAFCON.
3) A question: Is +Jensen included in the Primatial council? I know he’s not a Primate, but his leadership and objectivity (i.e. not directly involved in the CANA, AMiA, TEC struggles) seems crucial to me.
4) There needs to be a clear time frame and plan of action to get other Primates (like +Mouneer, +Chew etc.) on board ASAP.
What strikes you all?
Overall, I’m thrilled and filled with much thanksgiving! God is good, this is the day I’ve most enjoyed Anglican blogging in many many years!!!
Although not Anglican I salute these hierarchs for their courage and steadfastness. Well done. As for the particulars, this is about as clear a declaration as I can think of that Rowan Williams is now regarded as more or less irrelevant. They may not have declared pro forma a new communion, but they have made it clear that a new communion does in fact now exist.
They refer to four ecumenical councils… I am curious which of the seven ecumenical councils of the undivided church they reject and which the accept and what the basis is for their determination?
ICXC NIKA
John
For those working for Communion solutions within the Communion, Gafcon has been a positive and exciting development and we can but pray that the hard work spills into Lambeth Conference. Praise God. It was hard to know how all this would connect up with movements presently afoot, but we give thanks that Communion Partner Bishops have been present and have had a positive impact, alongside the many concerned citizens of our Communion. Let us redouble our prayers for Lambeth Conference. TEC’s revisionist agenda is minute and needs to be placed inside the scale of the real Communion’s commitments and mission. It is time to move forward on the strength of Gafcon’s hard and positive work.
Re #6
Karen B,
The phenomenon of Anglo-Catholicism is all but nonexistent in most of the developing world. What little is left of it exists mainly in England and N. America. Most however have moved on into one of the various splinter sects, have swum the Tiber, or gone Orthodox (big ‘O’). The largest bastion of Anglo-Catholics still around is the TAC and they have completely written off the Anglican Communion. They are actively seeking reunion with Rome.
ICXC NIKA
John
Thanks Chris Seitz for your comments. This gives me hope that GAFCON might indeed expand to include a wider range of Provinces, which is, I think, critical for its long term success.
Add my name to it.
00 Don Gander
Mineral Point, Wisconsin
“00”
zero zero means “For whatever it is worth.”
Right in line with “+” and “++”.
🙂
<<6. We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.>>
Without getting into a debate of which version of the BCP is the best, I fail to understand why this line item would make it into the Communique. Surely, the many versions since 1662 aren’t all bad. Furthermore, How many of the “orthodox” parishes are using the 1662 version, and of those who are not, how many can afford to replace their entire BCP collection? I see problems with this part.
H
CCP includes ACN. ACN includes churches currently in TEC. Does this mean TEC churches will be part of the new province? If so, what was the point of all the churches that have gone through the agony of leaving the Episcopal Church? Something is not adding up here; I hope it is just me.
Ad Orientem’s (7)…[blockquote]They [GAFCON] refer to four ecumenical councils… I am curious which of the seven ecumenical councils of the undivided church they reject and which they accept and what the basis is for their determination?[/blockquote] is certainly cogent. Could it be that the basis for GAFCON’s determination is because Anglicanism is not Catholic?
Howie…. I wonder, in part if the 1662 ordinal has two specific charges that needed to be lifted up … one, regarding the rejection of strange doctrines to God’s Word and also the exhortation to “take thou authority to preach the Word of God….”
Make that…Could it be that the basis for GAFCON’s determination is because Anglicanism is not C(or c)atholic?
Re # 16
kb9gzg,
That would certainly be the universal consensus in Orthodoxy. However lets not detract from this great day. It is true, their declaration is neither Catholic nor Orthodox. But it is unambiguously Christian. And for that I give thanks to God. One step at a time.
ICXC NIKA
John
I cross-posted my #6 over at SF and Fr. Andrew Gross left a very [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/13787/#240478]thoughtful reply.[/url]
I certainly hadn’t thought through the implications of my remark about +Jensen possibly being included on the Primates’ Council when I typed it. It was very much “off the top of my head.” Thinking a little further about the points raised by Fr. Gross, I wrote [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/13787/#240489]this:[/url]
I see what you mean about the problem of including +Jensen and thus not having any place to draw a line. Maybe the solution is to also soon elect clergy & lay reps to some kind of GAFCON council. After all, one of the consistently striking testimonies by some of the GAFCON bloggers is the amazement about the real inclusion of laity in this process and event. (And by including laity, we would be silencing the revisionists in one of their favorite arguments about TEC’s “inclusive†polity! LOL!)
As to timeframe, I agree we shouldn’t impose any pressure on others like +Mouneer and +Chew to join. Obviously the Lord has to guide and convince them in His time if this is of Him. But Lambeth WILL undoubtedly put pressure on them to take some kind of stand. We need to be keeping them in prayer.
I just wonder – presumably this statement is still to be approved formally by GAFCON delegates in a few hours time with the right to amend it as they see fit to agree?
#12. I think they are saying that the theology represented in the 1662 BCP is the standard, but does not preclude adaptations as long as they are consonant with the theology expressed in the 1662 book. This has long been Peter Toon’s assertion that revisions to the BCP for whatever reason should be held to the standard of the 1662 book. I like this statement.
Yes, Peter Toon would be happy with this declaration. I know he’s very sick–this makes a nice present of sorts.
#19, yes the statement needs to be approved by the delegates in the morning. But this was released by the GAFCON Press folks as a final communique with the one modification Kendall has noted, so I don’t know that anyone anticipates amendment.
But of course, we will keep folks posted as to what transpires tomorrow.
John #7,
The “four councils” goes back to Lancelot Andrewes, who identified classical Anglicanism as “One canon in Scripture revealed to us by God, two testaments, three creeds, the four first councils, and five centuries with the fathers through them (three hundred years before Constantine and two hundred years after), fix the rule of religion for us.”
The four councils are the “four first” as stated above. I should know what the Caroline objections were to the last three, but I don’t. I’ve tried to get clarification on this point numerous times, but have yet to find someone who knows what the objections were. (If anyone can supply some of the historical background here, it might be helpful.) Some Anglicans historically objected to the seventh for the same reason Charlemagne did, but this should not be an issue now as it seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the distinction between latria and dulia. As orthodox Anglicans reject monophysitism and monotheletism, I cannot imagine what possible objections there might be to the fifth and sixth.
My hunch is that the reference to the “four” is simply an indirect citation of the classic Lancelot Andrewes quotation, not a rejection of the fifth, sixth or seventh.
It would appear that National Review (http://tinyurl.com/3zahsg) is calling this a formal schism. I really can’t dispute their interpretation. GAFCON has in all but name created a new communion. Not that I am in the least bit distressed by this…
ICXC NIKA
John
William,
Thank you for your clarification.
Yours in ICXC
John
1) Since the document stresseed the 1662 Bokk of Common Prayer as the standard, and since most people see the 1979 prayer book as not faithful to the 1662, are they calling for a new American Prayer Book to replace the ’79?
2) are we now going to see more inhibitions on the part of KJS and the HOB against those from the US who participated in GAFCON?
Jim Elliott <><
I will reserve more substantive comment until the FINAL version is officially approved. But meanwhile, just a minor quibble about names. At the start, there are three key points highlighted when the statement stresses, “…we hereby:
1. launch the GAFCON movement as a fellowship of confessing Anglicans
2. publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of the fellowship
3. Encourage the GAFCON Primates to establish a Council.”
I suggest that it’s better to let GAFCON be the name of a conference, not a movement. I’m delighted that this historic conference is going to be the start of a movement and not a one-time event. But it makes more sense for the movement to be called something like the GAF movment, not the GAFCON movement. Likewise, mention of “the GAFCON Primates” would naturally suggest just the primates actually at this great event, not any that later join the movement. So to me, it makes more sense for this group to be called the GAF Primates, not the GAFCON Primates.
Of course, it’s likely that another name entirely will eventually be chosen. I’m just speaking of trying to avoid confusion in the meantime.
This is a bold, strong statement. I celebrate the commitment being expressed to creating new ecclesial structures within which this movement can flourish. I have long contended that new wineskins were necessary. I do have major qualms about making the 39 Articles and the 1662 BCP the actual norms for measuring orthodoxy in this GAF movement, both because they are so one-sidedly Protestant or Reformed and because they don’t directly address the heresies we face today. But again, I’ll reserve further comment until the 1148 participants gathered in Jerusalem release the final, official version, and any clarifications are made at the closing press conference.
In the meantime, I call attention to the fact that June 29th is the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. That may turn out to be very apt and providential timing. Since Peter is the hero of Catholics, and Paul the hero of Protestants, I hope that the GAF movement can be faithful to the heritage of BOTH Peter and Paul. Of course, I’d be even happier if St. Luke were added as a representative of the Pentacostal or charismatic dimension (thinking of Acts here), but there has never been a Feast of Peter, Paul, and Luke. And Luke wasn’t martyred in Rome, as Peter and Paul were. I’m only talking about the symbolism involved here.
Meeting in Jerusalem is highly symbolic and apt. Releasing a momentous declaration on the Feast of both Peter and Paul is also highly apt and very meaningfully symbolic.
David Handy+
forgive the spelling errors (“Bokk” instead of “Book”). My cat decided to jump on my lap as I was typing, and I didn’t notice the errors until the message was posted.
(no kitty treats for you, Smokey!)
JE <><
[i]In the meantime, I call attention to the fact that June 29th is the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. That may turn out to be very apt and providential timing. Since Peter is the hero of Catholics, and Paul the hero of Protestants, I hope that the GAF movement can be faithful to the heritage of BOTH Peter and Paul. [/i]
Thanks, David!
Following is what I posted yesterday at another place on T19 in response to a news item that discussed “GAFCon as an Opportunity.”
==========================================
“GAFCon may become a strategic success, but patience is required.
Of the four instruments of Anglican unity (1) the ABC, (2) the Primates meeting in synod, (3) the once every ten years Lambeth event and (4) the ACC, only the Primates meeting in synod may continue to have significant influence/effect on the Anglican Communion.
The office of the ABC has lost the confidence of a significant part of the Communion.
The Lambeth event has been diminished by the ABC himself.
The ACC is seen by much of the Communion as being overly under the influence of the progressive-revisionists in North America, Britain and Ireland and is therefore not trusted by many within the Communion.
However, the Primates meeting in synod have demonstrated very tangible episcopal leadership in the midst of almost revolutionary disruption by the progressive-revisionists within the Communion.
And now we have GAFCon, a creation of the orthodox numerical majority within the Communion. GAFCon is doing what the current Lambeth meeting has been designed not to do, it is addressing the issues of concern to the orthodox Anglicans head-on.
This first GAFCon doesn’t have to come up with some sort of immediately enacted radical solution to the disruptions caused by the progressive-revisionists. It just needs to meet regularly, say every two years. If it does this, I foresee further diminishment of the importance of the Lambeth events and the ACC, possibly even a diminishment of the role of the ABC. After all, the ABC is a British Government appointed entity. He is not selected from among his Communion-wide peers by his Communion-wide peers.
June 27, 8:59 pm ”
========================================
This GAFCon statement, if passed tomorrow, has the wherewithal to transform/reform the Anglican Communion into synodic body run by the Primates.
Lambeth might be replaced by synodic meetings of the Primates. The ACC can become a vestigal appendage, something like tonsils or an appendix. And the Communion may be freed of the idiosyncrasies of a presiding primate appointed by the British Government.
Just for informational purposes:
[url=http://www.goarch.org/en/special/listen_learn_share/luke/learn/index.asp]Feast day of St. Luke the evangelist[/url], beloved physician: October 18.
I’m sure Fr. Handy knew this, but I didn’t. 🙂
#27 Jerusalem is a good name.
Re #17
Ad Orientem, point well taken!
Dr. Witt (and other interested parties),
First, it was nice to meet you briefly at Trinity a couple of weeks ago through Phil Harrold (I’d done some work with Wesley and the Caroline Divines).
I’m sure you’ve already seen these, but I pulled out More and Cross’s compendium ANGLICANISM and reviewed the following: “I reverence and admit the Four General Councils as Catholic and Orthodox. And the said Four General Councils are acknowledged by our Acts of Parliament, and received for orthodox by our Church” (King James I, first written in Latin in 1609). They also have Jeremy Taylor reinforce it: “The Church of England receives the four first Generals as of highest regard, not that they are infallible, but that they have determined wisely and holily.”
They also cite at length (several pages) Richard Field’s OF THE CHURCH (written 1606-1610, 5 vols.). He talks more extensively about the General Councils and basically argues that councils 5 and 6 build upon what was already declared, and perhaps, were somewhat redundant (my interpretation of Field). However, he does say that “These [1-6] were all the lawful General Councils.” He argues that 7 “was not called about any question of faith, but of manners.” He defends his thesis here, but, even then, he’s rather gracious about this council, as well.
Perhaps Trinity’s library has the full work?
And David+: Your comment about the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul?–that’s just plain cool, brother.
William Shontz
http://www.willsho.org
Unlike provinces which have been shown to have nothing to fear by way of discipline from the AC or any of its instruments, I foresee that the ACN churches within TEO will face great difficulties ahead. Up to this point they have managed, through membership in ACN, to maintain traditional integrity as reassurers. Perhaps as the new provinces stabilizes, ACN can be kept as a parallel entity within TEO. ACN though really serves as a survival mechanism for these parishes, living under varying degrees of hostile authority.
Very different from today’s words from Jerusalem which promise a war for the heart and soul of Anglicanism.
In the long run I would expect to see the haemorraging out of TEO to accelerate over the next few years. I can’t help but feel that departing congregations are going to find it increasingly difficult to leave with their property.
Seitz,
I am terribly disillusioned by this document and puzzled by your response (although I sense your response a lukewarm endorsement at best). I have been anxiously awaiting a statement that gives us true hope that meaningful change is coming. Instead, I read a document which is no different than what was heard in every other important Orthodox leadership meeting over the past 3-5 years. First it was CAPA, then CAPAC, then the Network, then the Common cause. All of their statements have wonderful, flowery, and glorious language which is superficially uplifting but when you get down to the substance of exploring WHAT will actually get done and HOW is it different than what we’ve said before, I see the fizzle has left this soda. I am terribly demoralized!
I am sure many here will seek to put a wonderfully positive spin to this all and I wish it were so. However, quite frankly, I don’t see anything here that doesn’t follow the pattern of so many of our former statements: grand declarations of the truth with very little definitive action.
To the average Episcopalian with orthodox leanings in a revisionist diocese, this is the same old, same old we’ve been hearing for the past 5 years. I’ll huff and I’ll puff and ….no action.
What is most disheartening is the thoughts of what behind the scenes factors played the pivotal role in the events which shaped the decisions made by so many of these bishops and leaders in the past 6 months.
I remain disgusted and demoralized.
#36, hyacinth, When a church falls into heresy, apostasy, is warned for 10 years, there will eventually and surely be consequences. It is time for the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada to reap what they have sowed. My heart grieves for those who are my longtime friends who will have to struggle to make a decision how to handle this. I am sure the Common Cause people will try their best to help. I will pray for you.
Bill C,
I agree with you that it will be increasingly difficult for parishes to leave TEC in the future with their property. It is sad to say but I suspect that such considerations may very well form the basis for the events within the orthodox camp in the past 6 months. Many had expected that the orthodox would finally put their foot down at GAFCON. Unfortunately, not only are the American congregations too enamoured with their material possesions, but it seems other provinces are weighing the cost to them as well.
I can’t help but be reminded of Jesus’ teachings on the cost of discipleship in Luke 9:57-62.
Though I need to digest this document, I like the “confessing” language in which it is framed. There is a long, noble history in the church of confessing movements, ecclesiola in ecclesia, sodalities, etc. They usually have two functions: (1) They are “2nd committment” organizations for the re-evangelization of the church and society AND (2) a safety zone for orthodox Christians under persecution from the dominant, syncretized Church. Many noble believers helped further the gospel through such movements: St. Francis, Wesley, Bonhoeffer, etc.
Again, I need to read it closely later, but on first glance this looks promising.
Hyacinth,
“To the average Episcopalian with orthodox leanings in a revisionist diocese, this is the same old, same old….”
This is a [i]global[/i] Anglican movement. For many Episcopalians like you describe, there is no (nor could any statement or movement really, provide an) immediate and comfortable orthodox haven. There will likely be many years ahead of struggle. Sitting and waiting for some entity from outside to solve all the problems, though, may very well leave many orthodox in the same situation they have been in. Sometimes the best advice is to “take up your cross and follow Christ.” And what this movement can provide is the possibility of local orthodox bishops and worldwide Anglican connections for new parishes outside the structure of TEC.
#27, it might come as a surprise to the Pope that both St. Peter and St. Paul are anything less than heroes to Catholics:
http://www.annopaolino.org/interno.asp?id=3&lang=eng
For those of us who are Anglo Catholic, I’m positive that we’ll make very sure that we’re not pushed aside and ignored. The Jerusalem Declaration includes EVERYONE who holds true to the Faith, and that includes ME. It will be interesting to see how this announcement is received by Schori and Company, but I’m pretty sure they’ll try to spin it to their advantage, as usual…..although it may take them a while!
I have to reread this statement, and when it’s finalized and released, the official version, but I like what I see so far. As an example I notice the rejection of the current prayer book with its theology that has proved to be unhelpful in favor of some earlier version. Also agree with Tory about the confessional language.
In some of the comments above, I like Chris Seitz’s use of the phrase ‘hard work’ in that it reminds me of the ACI paper some years ago which spelled out the ‘hard work of Communion’ and gave numerous practical and unglamorous steps to undertake.
On another note I must say the phrase ‘GAFCON’ is not euphonic. Perhaps another phrase for the result of this new Jerusalem council could be found. I suggest something like the “Jerusalem Communionâ€.
TACit (#41),
Of course, Catholics also claim Paul as a hero; I’m not denying that. I assume your comment was fairly light-hearted, but I’ll still take the chance to elaborate. I was talking above in #27 in terms of symbolism. And since the Pope is the successor of St. Peter, and since Paul was the hero of Luther and many Protestant reformers, and Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith apart from works of the law was the main doctrinal battleground fought over at the Reformation, I think it’s entirely apt to let Peter stand for the Catholic Christianity and Paul for Protestant Christianity.
The fact that the two greatest apostles were both martyred in Rome at about the same time, under Nero in the mid 60s AD, and the fact that both are commemorated on the same day in the liturgical calendar is an apt symbol that they belong together and shouldn’t be played off against each other. One of the earliest patristic documents, generally known as “1 Clement,” or the Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, puts the two great apostles together as twin pillars of the whole Church, but especially the Church in Rome, where they both died. I think it’s chapter 5, where Clement, usually thought to be the 3rd Pope (Peter being the first), celebrates how both the leading apostles ended their lives and ministries with their courageous deaths in the Imperial City.
But if Catholics look to Peter as their chief patron saint, and Lutherans and Calvinists especially to Paul, and if Luke is theoretially the patron saint of Pentecostals and charismatics, what about us Anglicans? Traditionally, it’s usually thought that we look especially to the Gospel of John as the summit of Scripture and the place to which we are naturally most drawn, and so it could be argued that John represents the patron saint of Anglicanism.
But there is also something very apt in taking the combination of Peter and Paul to represent Anglicanism at its best. And I’m glad if other people find the timing of this potentially epoch-marking GAFCON declaration striking and appropriate. I just hope that the release of this Jerusalem Declaration on the Feastday of Peter and Paul turns out to be truly symbolic and not just an accidental fluke. That is, I hope and pray that Paul doesn’t drive out Peter in this New Reformation. There is a very real danger of that happening, but I continue to hope for the best.
And if your moniker, TACit, indicates that you’re one of the TAC crowd, then I’m sure you’ll agree and join me in hoping that orthodox Anglicanism will be faithful to both Peter and Paul.
David Handy+
Re #36
Hyacinth,
I can not help but wonder from your post if perhaps we read different documents. The one I read branded TEC as heretical and formally severed communion with them, most likely permanently. It declared the See of Canterbury to be irrelevant and in all but name formed a new communion. It declared with all the trumpets and bugles that would normally announce a calvary charge that they do not recognize TEC as a Christian Church and they consider themselves as obligated to intervene and establish a new province in N. America. They proclaimed the Christian Doctrine which forms the basis of their new communion, which although Protestant, is (at least) nonetheless unambiguously Christian. And they pretty much told anyone who did not agree with them that the time for dialogue has come to an end.
I have been among the most skeptical and downright cynical commenters on T-19 and throughout the blogosphere whenever the subject has been the so called conservative Anglicans. I can’t count the number of times I had to refrain from posting because anything I wrote would have been at the least devoid of charity and in some cases laced with language I picked up in the Navy. However, I am convinced that this is different for all the reasons posted above.
This is either the establishment of a new communion or a radical revolution overthrowing the old regime in the Anglican Communion. I think the former. But either way I don’t care and I don’t think the GAFCON bishops do either. This is as close to an earthquake as the Anglican Communion has experienced since some dude named Henry told the Pope where to get off. It is an almost primordial scream of “E N O U G H!!!” from some two hundred bishops who are collectively announcing they are done playing nice with heretics.
Will this fix North America in the next few weeks? No. If your looking for that you have vastly unrealistic expectations. But it is an announcement that help is on the way. And this is very very very bad news for 815 and Co.
ICXC NIKA
John
“Christ is risen and you O death are annihilated!”
A footnote to my quibble about names in #27. I am well aware that using the label GAF for this new movement is problematic, since it inevitably invites liberal jokes at our expense, playing on the idea that is represents a “gaffe” on our part. I think some other name will gradually emerge. But in the meantime, despite its drawbacks, I still think GAF is a better name for a movement than GAFCON, which is the name of an event, a conference.
Thanks for some of the encouraging responses to Peter and Paul symbolism I called attention to above.
David Handy+
Hmm. Interesting. After a quick read-through, if I had to summarize this, I’d say that the “GAFCON plan” is not so much to break with us reappraisers as it is to ignore us.
I’m assuming that when the document says, “In particular, we believe the time is now ripe for the formation of a province in North America for the federation currently known as Common Cause Partnership to be recognised by the Primates’ Council”, they’re referring to the “GAFCON Primates’ Council,” composed initially of those Primates attending the conference and (they hope) to be expanded to include other orthodox Primates. The language invites some confusion with the existing Primates’ Council that is one of the Instruments of Unity.
This may not be a formal break, but the more I think about how this is likely to play out I can’t see how it can help but become one, in effect if not in name, in fairly short order.
Elves, some help please. See #8. I am a member of the Anglican Church in America which is part of the TAC. Does the TAC refuse to “recognize” the ABC? If so why? Were any of the TAC invit ed to GAFCON? If not, why not? I wrote to my archbishop and asked why he never has addressed the issues that are on this blog all the time, since we are Anglicans too. Needless to say, I got no reply, so I have going to muster my chutzpah and write again. But I don’t understand this at all. My deacon merely says that we (the ACA) intend to preach the gospel – t hat’s fine, I say – but I also said that there comes a time when to refuse to engage makes one complicit. And I still think that. Can you enlighten me? Or someone else?
Larry
I read Hyacinth with some biting of fingernails for I fear he/she may be too close to correct. Now, have I missed something? Where does this statement declare forthrightly that the break with TEC is formal and complete? Have I misread? I THOUGHT I read a deal of waffle language that tastes good, like cake icing, but sort of protein. Well, I’ll read it again (and againi) and hope I see something more explicit. Larry
Re: #s 7, 14, 23 & 34,
In the Act of Supremacy of 1559, which severed the Church of England from the “papal obedience” and reestablished the Royal Supremacy, there is a clause that states (as I recall from memory) that nothing hereafter shall be taken or adjudged for heresy save that which is against the four councils of the ancient church or save that that shall hereafter be declared to be heresy by Act of Parliament. It was the general consensus of all Protestant Reformers that these four councils defined the faith truly; however, all non-Lutheran Reformers, and especially although not uniquely Calvin, considered that the seventh council had permitted and mandated idolatry in permitting and even requiring the veneration of icons — and so I suppose that this clause in the Act of Supremacy was derived from this consensus. (Lutherans, by contrast, while never to my knowledge accepting the authority of th seventh council, found its decrees unobjectionable.)
As far as I can see, none of the Anglican reformers or theologians before Andrewes addressed the issue of the fifth or sixth council, although those that mentioned the seventh condemned it unreservedly (cf. Jewel). Andrewes said more than once that the fifth and the sixth were simply “auxiliaries” to the first four, and especially to the fourth, and as such unobjectionable; and he even claimed that the seventh council, properly understood, was unobjectionable, but that it might give rise to superstitious practices among the ignorant. His views on the fifth and sixth councils became standard Anglican fare thereafter, although his views on the seventh council remained a minority view among Anglicans — even many of the Caroline Divines (such as Jeremy Taylor) rejected it. The man who has a claim to being the “last Caroline divine,” John Johnson of Cranbrooke (1662-1723) even claimed that the seventh council (Nicaea II, 787) was heretical, and that if there was an orthodox seventh council, the iconoclastic Council of Hiereia of 754 had a far better claim than Nicaea II to have upheld Christian orthodoxy.
Even the Nonjurors, those who (in England) were expelled from the Church of England after 1689 for refusing to recognize the deposition of James II or who (in Scotland) continued to follow the Scottish bishops after the Church of Scotland was turned into a Presbyterian body in 1690, who were generally very “high church,” baulked at the seventh council. The ill-fated and star-crossed attempts at “ecumenical dialogue” between the Nonjurors and the Russian Orthodox Church in the 17-teens, which eventually petered out as much for political reasons as for theological, and which were premised upon a common veneration for the Church Fathers and a common detestation of “popery,” reached an impasse over the issues of the invocation of the saints and especially the legitimacy and necessity of the veneration of icons, and the ecumenical status of the seventh council.
For those to whom this subject if of interest, I would recommend the little book, or booklet, by C. B. Moss, *The Church of England and the Seventh Council* (1957), copies of which can be had here:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=moss&sts=t&tn=seventh+council&x=53&y=9
I very much like the move to a confessional denomination, one which gets back to the very roots of Anglicanism. This is something that the Anglican Communion has always needed and is centuries overdo.
Sorry, I meant overdue. My bad.
Re # 48
Larry,
TAC has pretty much written off the Anglican Communion and the ABC. They are mostly Anglo-Catholic in their orientation and are far more conservative than most of the GAFCON crowd rejecting women’s ordination among other things. They really would have no reason to participate in GAFCON since they have submitted a petition to the Pope in Rome asking to be received into communion with the Holy See as a sort of uniate Anglican Rite Church analogous to the Byzantine Rite Catholics.
The last I heard was their petition is being handled by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in Rome, and they are waiting for a reply from the Vatican. In making this petition they have of course petty much signed onto all of the dogmatic teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. They hope to retain a distinctly Anglican liturgy and a married clergy. There have been a number of rumors circulating of late that Rome might be preparing to make some sort of decision but are holding off until after the Lamberth meeting as a courtesy to the ABC. This however is strictly rumor, and the sources are not what I would call reliable.
The best source for current and accurate information on the TAC that I have found is likely Dr. William Tighe, an occasional poster in this forum.
Yours in ICXC
John
And I note that even while I was typing his name Dr. Tighe has joined the fray…
“The last I heard was their petition is being handled by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in Rome, and they are waiting for a reply from the Vatican. In making this petition they have of course petty much signed onto all of the dogmatic teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. They hope to retain a distinctly Anglican liturgy and a married clergy. There have been a number of rumors circulating of late that Rome might be preparing to make some sort of decision but are holding off until after the Lamberth meeting as a courtesy to the ABC. This however is strictly rumor, and the sources are not what I would call reliable.”
This accords with what I have heard, too. However, since all the TAC bishops who were present at their Portsmouth Synod in England last October individually signed their names to both a copy of the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* and to a document declaring their acceptance of all that that catechism contains, and sent a delegation to Rome immediately thereafter to deliver the document to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I see no reason for the qualification “pretty much” in “they have of course petty much signed onto all of the dogmatic teachings of the Roman Catholic Church,” as they have clearly and unequivocally done so.
There was a rumor that Rowan Williams had made a direct appeal to the pope to defer the promulgation of any “Anglican Uniate (sic) Church” until after the Lambeth Conference. I understand that Lambeth Palace issued a formal disavowal in late May that any such request had been made. Whatever the truth of this, I have heard from several well-informed (and separate) sources that the project is progressing slowly in Rome, and has the favor of the pope himself.
NRA (#44) wrote:
The fact that the two greatest apostles were both martyred in Rome at about the same time, under Nero in the mid 60s AD, and the fact that both are commemorated on the same day in the liturgical calendar is an apt symbol that they belong together and shouldn’t be played off against each other.
I have read that the two apostles were assigned to the same feast day precisely for this reason. When one faction identified with Peter and another with Paul, the apostles were becoming a symbolic source of division. By assigning them to the same feast day, the Church made it impossible to celebrate one without also celebrating the other. This tradition has broken down in the West, where it is not uncommon to find a parish dedicated to either St. Peter or St. Paul alone. In the East, however, the two are almost never honored separately.
One interesting feature of the 1979 BCP is that, while Ss. Peter and Paul do have separate feast days in January, their feasts are exactly a week apart, and they frame the Octave of Prayer for Christian Unity.
#27, I guess it was just to suggest a shift in perspective. Anyway, Roland’s comment along with yours have added much new info, thanks.
Just got out of an seven hour surgery to find this pleasant surprise.
I think the main take home point is the following:
[blockquote]While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Building on the above doctrinal foundation of Anglican identity, we hereby publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of our fellowship.[/blockquote]
Lots of unanswered questions, but we should be OK with that. This is is meant to be foundational not to be walls and roof. That foundation is the Jerusalem confession.
Hyacinth,
Regarding your #36
Before I say anything else this evening, let me say I truly understand your position. Given where I live and the fact that I’m currently attending a PCUSA church, I understand you desire for rescue. I wish one could be provided, as it would address need we share for rescue.
However, such a rescue was never in the cards. Given the structure of the Anglican Communion, such outside interventions are not possible. I suspect this is something that the apparatchiks at 815 have always understood and the rest of us have had to learn, by often painful experience. If you have not yet read it I would suggest that you read the ABC’s address to the Dean and Community of St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. In this document the ABC states: “Anglicans have failed to think through primacy with any theological seriousness and so have become habituated to a not very coherent or effective international structure….†In my reading I believe this to represent the core, which anchors his unwillingness to discipline TEC from the outside.
Now moving to Declaration, I read this very differently from the earlier international documents. The earlier document all spoke in language, which asked TEC to reform itself, to undo the actions which had caused disharmony; this language is not in this document. As I read this my sense is that the drafters are saying if you do not hold orthodox beliefs, you are irrelevant to us. I agree with the there commenters who see this as a starting point for a reform movement in the Anglican tradition, by making a clear and unambiguous statement, reading the bedrock of this communion. I’m looking forward to seeing how this call to action is actually implemented.
You are right that this does nothing for us in the short term. Where I see the hope, is that this Declaration clearly states that we live in, what is again mission territory. “The actions of these Primates have been a positive response to pastoral necessities and mission opportunities. We believe that such actions will continue to be necessary and we support them in offering help around the world.†No the short term is going to be brutal and very painful in many parts of the country. I also suspect that between now and next summer that all of us, will have to declare who we follow.
Stu
Fr. David Handy, NRA, may I suggest Global Anglican (GA) rather than the unfortunate GAF?
Larry Morse, the people above have answered most of your questions. Here, as I see it, are the options for the catholic-minded non-TEC Anglicans in North America: (1)ACA, which is part of the TAC, (most of) whose bishops have signed their names in agreement with all Roman Catholic dogma and are petitioning for admission to Rome. (2) ACC/APCK (and there’s one other smaller one whose name I forget). These are moving towards being one stand-alone Anglo-Catholic body. They are not interested in joining the Common Cause effort. (3) APA, which is mostly high-church, and has an intercommunion agreement with the lower-church REC. REC is a full part of Common Cause; in typical ambiguous Anglican fashion, the APA is pausing to see where this goes before fully jumping on board. A formal commitment from the movement on a permanent place for those who do not ordain women is going to be needed to keep these bodies in the new Province, and I suspect this means, for the new body, no women bishops.
Well it is a great day. And I am optimistic that any difficulties Evangelicals have with the Anglo Chatolcs can be worked out because both streams, when connected to Scripture, enrich each other.
Thank you, William Tighe (#50),
As I mentioned above, the real issue has always been the question of icons (the seventh Council), with early Anglicans being iconoclasts (as were, at various times, numerous Western Catholic Christians, e.g., Charlemagne). There are, of course, even some contemporary Anglicans who have maintained this stance, e.g., J. I. Packer, in his immensely popular book, Knowing God, has a section rejecting all use of imagery in worship as idolatry.
I’m afraid the banning of icons would be somewhat problematic at TSM, where about half of the faculty have them in their offices. The new Dean/President has pictures of Luther, Calvin, and Barth on his wall, but I’m not sure those qualify as icons.
At the University of Notre Dame I once attended the wedding of a Catholic graduate student (he was a liturgist), in which, in an attempt to be ecumenical, Martin Luther and John Calvin were invoked to “pray for us.” I could hear the sound of earth moving all the way from Europe as these two Reformers twirled rapidly in their graves.
And concerning the ACA, I believe ACA bishop(s) have attended some of the common cause (or similar) meetings as observers only. So ACA is openly sympathetic and (guardedly) supportive of the Common Cause partners. My understanding though, is the ACA’s Bp. Moyer’s offer to observe a recent meeting was turned down by a common cause organizer. I suppose, but don’t know, that it was all or nothing this past year, and there was no space for anti-WO/strong Anglo-Catholicism–not at the table or even in the room.
The Declaration’s explicit statements on the 39 Articles are OK with me (high church) but some in ACA might not like it. The “4 councils” statement will likely, unfortunately, be taken as “fightin’ words” by some in ACA, ACPK, ACC, etc.
I sort of suspect that the 39 articles are going to be amended a bit…kind of hard to have a “post-colonial” church where the King of England is at the head, no?
Cheers,
Phil Hobbs
Btw, those here who are interested in Anglican relations (and affinities) with (Eastern) Orthodoxy should strive to read that wonderful book (or booklet), originally published in 1949, *Anglicanism and Orthodoxy: A Study in Dialectical Churchmanship* by H. A. Hodges. It can be obtained here:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=hodges&bi=0&bx=off&ds=30&sortby=2&sts=t&tn=anglicanism&x=33&y=14
at a high-ish price, of course, but it is a very profound and even moving study.
Very well said, Stu. Hyacinth, those who are trapped ‘in enemy territory’ will now at least have a resource to ask for help from a renewed and authentic Anglican presence in North America.
Heretofore, the cries of the orthodox were not heard except from the Global South.
[blockquote]I suppose, but don’t know, that it was all or nothing this past year, and there was no space for anti-WO/strong Anglo-Catholicism–not at the table or even in the room.[/blockquote]
I would suggest that the opposite might well be the concern. Of the Common Cause Partners, most do not ordain women. Pittsburgh is the most glaring exception and the other partners (despite their own positions) have continued to recognize Bob Duncan as their leader. So far, Common Cause is committed to the same position as held by the Anglican Communion as a whole on this issue–recognizing that different provinces and dioceses will take different positions on WO, but this is not a ground for breaking fellowship.
Of course, if a group is unwilling to recognize Bob Duncan’s position within Common Cause because of Pittsburgh’s stance, that would, of course, be a problem–but only because they had chosen to exclude themselves.
It seems to me that this statement does two things. First, it summarizes the sound biblical theology that we already knew the participants affirmed. Second, it announces that the participants will continue to do what they’ve been doing: finding new ways to work together, building on existing ties, offering support of various kinds to like-minded Anglicans in North America. It’s a “steady as she goes” document which does little except to say that the current course is the best one. But it couldn’t have been anything more decisive, given the vagueness of the current Communion ties and the ongoing legal wrangling in the U.S. My best guess is that the relationship between TEC/Canada and the rest of the Communion, and the legal/ecclesiastical status of dissenting parishes and dioceses, will still be under debate at Lambeth 2018. In the meantime, many individual parishes will achieve some clarity — will find their places within some existing structure of governance — but I think it would be unwise to expect any full clarification of the Big Picture for another decade or more.
Katherine (#60),
Yes, I like your proposal of Global Anglican or GA as opposed to the ridicule-inviting “GAF” movement. Of course, that may then lead some outsiders to wonder what in the world Georgia has to do with this new Anglican movement. Oh well, no name is perfect. And it’s certainly not up to you or me to decide.
Dr. Witt and Dr. Tighe,
As always, I gratefully welcome input from both of you. On those relatively rare occasions when you choose to add a comment here, it’s invariably informative and helpful.
David Handy+
#36 — been away from the computer. Not sure where you stand in these affairs, so perhaps what you were looking for I was not. So my response is unlikely to bring comfort, I suspect. But here goes. I assume that the communique is general/imprecise in the nature of the case, because Gafcon is not about assembling new confessions or inventing a fresh Anglicanism de jour, but is instead reflective of a movement, a desire to be a better Communion. That is, its lack of stipulation is a good thing (though it leaves people the opportunity to exegete and lobby for interpretation X). So the real practical work lies in the future. Creating a new province may sound good if all one needs is some people ‘in high places’ to call for it, but the hard work is prosecuting such a thing (Pittsburgh will be its own proving ground). You will appreciate that ACI and Communion Partners prefers the differentiation route to the separation route, and this communiqué forecloses on nothing in that respect, even as it hints at some form or structure. My worry was over-stipulation at a time when it would be better to fight hard at Lambeth. Communion Partners is an alliance of 13 Bishops, key Primates, and 40 or so rectors. This ‘inside’ strategy could be nicely complemented if wider Communion pressure assists, and it was good that +MacPherson, +Lawrence, +Love and +Adams were all there on the ground. Beyond that, and in the light of reports I have received, it seems to me that Gafcon is an inauguration, not a conclusion. On to Lambeth. ACI is committed to the Communion, and Gafcon came out in the end supportive and chastening. The hard work lies ahead.
I agree with David Handy+ ([url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/13784/#240542]#27[/url]) – this should be referred to as the Jerusalem Declaration on the Anglican Communion (or just Jerusalem Declaration). The Gafcon Communique or Gafcon Statement just doesn’t ring true.
Also, robroy, #58 – I was surprised you were reading this so soon after major surgery – then I remembered you are a surgeon. ;-P
These are all terrific comments.
#64 alfonso, I remain puzzled by the ACA’a participation in FACA while vigorously pursuing its Roman dream. I met Bishop Moyer once, at an ACA Synod, and he seemed to me entirely committed to the Roman project. I would view ACA observation of a Common Cause meeting as perhaps somewhat adversarial, or at least not favorable. And as LP patiently points out, the ACC/APCK group are not interested.
#70 David Handy+, how about the Fellowship of Global Anglicans (FGA)? Or, the Jerusalem Fellowship?
Regarding the name of the group or movement – we are Anglicans. Pure and simple.
But if you need to identify the strain the document seems to prefer “fellowship of confessing Anglicans.”
On first reading, there is much to be encouraged about in the Final Statement and also some very serious questions which need considering:
A. Encouragements include:
1. No schism in the Anglican Communion – it seems that Peter Jensen, amongst others, has insisted on this
2. the tone is serious and not vituperative
3. the Jerusalem Declaration sets the controversies in a wide context and is likely to become an important document in the future
4. there has clearly been joyful fellowship and worship during the conference
5. ‘Fellowship’ is a good word to use in this context, much better than ‘church’ or ‘network’ or ‘federation’
B. Questions which need considering:
1. the substantial authority that the Primates’ Council claims for itself to define who is authencially Anglican – it specifically excludes the Archbishop of Canterbury from such a role, though there is the interesting word ‘necessarily’:
[blockquote]While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury.[/blockquote]
2. who has the authority to gather this new Primates’ Council – ie who will preside? The natural leader who emerged in the planning of GAFCON, and during it, is Peter Jensen. However, he is not a Primate. It is likely, however, that he would be included in the Council – perhaps as its chair or covenor.
3. Concerning the following quotation:
[blockquote]We recognise the desirability of territorial jurisdiction for provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion, except in those areas where churches and leaders are denying the orthodox faith or are preventing its spread, and in a few areas for which overlapping jurisdictions are beneficial for historical or cultural reasons.[/blockquote]
Would this allow clergy in dioceses of the Church of England who say their bishop is ‘unorthodox’ or who is ‘preventing their church planting’ to claim to be under the authority of the Primates’ Council? It seems to open up the potential for grave divisions, and the possible license, which some have longed planned for, of importing into the Church of England the divisions of The Episcopal Church. It is here that the real test comes whether this is in fact a ‘church within a church’ – or even ‘a church in fellowship’s clothing’…
4. there may not be schism in the Communion as a whole, but the Primates’ Council is being called upon to authenicate a split in the USA from The Episcopal Church in the very near future. How is a split in one province not a schism in the whole? On the answer to this question much of the future of the Communion depends.
Graham–outstanding questions that will have to be addressed. It is one thing to dream up a Council, but quite another thing to understand what its remit genuinely is. But I suspect that will comprise their main work for some time. If +Mouneer is included in this as well, alongside +Mokiwa, they will all need to understand how to avoid overreaching. For my part, I cannot see how it will resolve anything in NA where there is already deep division; it would likely just raise the stakes. But it could help in places where wider Communion involvement enhances conservative Bishops, Dioceses, parishes keen to live within Communion constraints and hopes.
Graham #76:
[blockquote] A. Encouragements include:
1. No schism in the Anglican Communion – it seems that Peter Jensen, amongst others, has insisted on this [/blockquote]
Akinola said as much a few weeks ago. Why would you relegate him to “amongst others” when he’s been vocal and clear (not to mention the chairman of GAFCON)?
“I would view ACA observation of a Common Cause meeting as perhaps somewhat adversarial, or at least not favorable.” Some in Common Cause apparently felt the same.
My observation is that it is Common Cause that is exlcuding others in this case, even as they have been excluded from the effective power structures of TEC. It is not, as some have assumed, that continuing church folks are against coming to the table of Traditional Anglicans.
Regarding Anglo-catholics and the 1662 BCP and the 39 Articles:
If they were good enough for Pusey they should be acceptable to ACs. Getting back to the unity we once possessed, even if there was tension in that unity and disagreements on how to interpret the unifying elements, seems to be a good way forward. After so much disunity through wanton disregard for our Anglican, catholic and simply Christian tradition it only makes sense to backtrack before we find our way forward. It’s akin to a form of ecclesiastical repentance.
Now if only we could do the same thing with the issue that divides us: Women’s Ordination. It is ultimnately UNACCEPTABLE to declare this matter adiaphora. That would be an arrogant, and frankly unChristian, way of saying, “These changes don’t matter to us, so you will have to accept them while surrendering the changes that DO matter to us.” The only way for this venture to succeed is to repent of ALL the changes that have divided us. THEN we can respectfully and Christianly debate the true theological and biblical merits of any of these past changes.
Graham, the split in TEC and in the Communion took place, despite ample warning, on All Saints Day, 2003. A prayer for the primates’ council can be found here.
In the roundup of links for GAFCON coverage (especially bloggers in Jerusalem) that we posted at the start of GAFCON, we somehow missed the Church Times blog. While probably not widely read in the US, I’m sure it’s important reading in the UK. Paul Handley had a number of interesting blog entries during GAFCON. You can read them all here:
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/blog_home.asp?id=50222
My understanding though, is the ACA’s Bp. Moyer’s offer to observe a recent meeting was turned down by a common cause organizer.
Alfonso, I can think of no justification for Common Cause to do such a thing. But nor can I conceive of a motive to do so. Are you sure of your facts? How have you heard of this? Many divisions have been exacerbated by confused communication and the natural evolution of events through rumour.
Re: #80
Chris H.
Good luck with that. Personally I think you should buy a lottery ticket. Your odds are better. Of course if you actually were able to somehow get rid of W/O the Romans might start taking Anglicanism seriously again.
But the reality is that the vast majority of those who take the issue of W/O seriously have written the AC off and moved on to other spiritual homes.
ICXC NIKA
John
#71 — I find your words encouraging and I do pray that this is a movement that transforms Lambeth. Although I was very much encouraged by the language of the Communique, two things are problematic for me.
First, that the dismissal of the importance of Canterbury seems to be mainly a reaction to THIS PARTICULAR archbishop but the broad language still distances conservatives from the See itself. To me, that language seems mired in the present difficulties and seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Sure, we’ve felt abandoned by this ABC but God in His Mercy and Providence could very well provide us with a strong Defender of the Faith in the near future.
Secondly, the spectre of PB Dolores Umbridge, ahem, Katharine Schori looms large. She litigates amok and our fledgling federation hasn’t the resources to counter. Will we get ANY help from the Communion in asserting that she does not have a monopoly on the Anglican franchise in the U.S.?
#85. Your concerns are proper. I got the sense that Gafcon was a good event, in the sense of the catholic (tractarian) or evangelical (wesleyian) revivals – that is, at the level of renewal, directed toward our Communion life as a whole. I thought the communiqué proper was a bit of a hodge-podge (we are against schism; we are for a new province, maybe, ‘the time is ripe’; 39 articles are good, so too PB conformity and ordinal), as are many ‘committee’ documents. The idea of a Council may be an overreach at the level some will wish it to function. How does it actually win anything in internal legal battles in TEC? But it was good to have Communion Partner bishops present, and the wide representation is good. Beyond that, this is an inauguration, and I think +Jensen has seen the event and its significance in proper proportion. The hard work needs to carry into Lambeth Conference. I don’t see Gafcon as anything but a work in progress. The key for conservatives is to let TEC progressives declare their hand totally, and then let the wider Communion work through its channels to deal with this. What Gafcon shows me is that there is no real short cut for this hard work. But God has blessed the Communion richly. I believe he will guard what he has raised up.
Well this is indeed a great day and a time for those of us in the Anglican faith and the faith in our risen Lord Jesus Christ.
Now Lord may we all in one accord bind together as an instrument of your true peace and do the work that you have given us to do!
Praise be! Praise the name of Jesus! Alleluia! And all God’s people say “AMENâ€!
Peace of Jesus to all the faithful pilgrims of GAFCON and Anglicans worldwide.
Dwight
“I am resurrection and I am life, says the Lord; he that believes in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; and whosoever lives and believes in Me shall never die” – John 11:25-26
Ad orientem, I am not imagining that a rejection of WO is immediately required but that it must be put on the table as things that can be considered. Prejudicing the ardgument by continuing its entrenchment seems to be a sure way to get ACs to leave. This means that the Primate of a body composed of antiWO and proWO would have to refrain from ordaining women, whatever his opinion. It is no point of Evangelical orthodoxy that women MUST be ordained, while it is part of conservative Catholic orthodoxy. It would seem to me that a leader, at the very least, must not oppose in his person the orthodoxy of any of his people.
Now, we may not get to this point immediately. But if there is serious desire for greater unity than that held by Baptists, and I believe that there is, then this is what will have to happen. The evangelicals may not know it or want to admit it yet, and that is their historic defect, but it can still happen.
If not, then this will not be an excercize in getting the church back on the right track as it is of getting to the caboose while the train steadily rides off the cliff. It will buy us some time, giving those of us truly interested in being part of the maintaining the teaching and practice of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church some safe breathing space before we consider where we need to go.
“But God has blessed the Communion richly. I believe he will guard what he has raised up.”
As do I believe, Seitz-ACI. Thank you for your response. Perhaps, as this document articulates our position quite well, it will be the springboard toward God’s new “new thing,” LOL. But this time it will be in the true spirit of the church.
Well stated #89 Teatime. I like the term “springboard” and “true spirit of the church” Well stated!
This is for those of you who are worried about the GAF: Take out your dictionary, please. GAF(F) is an iron hook with a handle for landing a big fish. It also refers to a spar that supports the head of a fore-and-aft sail. Both of these images are entirely appropriate for a group of mission minded Christians fishing for people. The other usage, as in, “Can you stand the gaff?” refers to harsh treatment, criticism, or ridicule. Again most appropriate considering the revisionist constant referral to GAF(FE). Take courage and use this information well.
#9 “The phenomenon of Anglo-Catholicism is all but nonexistent in most of the developing world.” This statement would come as rather a shock in places like Southern Africa, Central Africa, Ghana, Papua New Guinea, the Torres Strait, and much of the Caribbean, where Anglo-Catholicism was the form in which Anglicanism was introduced (or the direction in which it developed), and where it remains the standard expression of the faith. Evangelicals may be about to rule the new Communion, but they are not the only traditional believers out there.
[blockquote] The key for conservatives is to let TEC progressives declare their hand totally, and then let the wider Communion work through its channels to deal with this.[/blockquote]
Like the AC has already done? Like Wendsor was enforced? Right!?
If I read GAFCON correctly they propose to move ahead ignoring the ABC and Lambeth and TEC. This is what give me hope. If the AC reforms fine, if not leave it in the dust.
Br. Michael (#93),
I agree. As +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted said in Jordan, before the pilgrimage part of GAFCon started, the “Reformation Settlement” has failed and is obsolete. It will have to be replaced. And I do mean REPLACED, not supplemented or reformed.
GAFCon represents the inauguration of the GLOBAL infrastructure needed to support a new orthodox province in North America. It represents a decisive shift in the game. The leaders of GAFCON are determined not to stay in reactionary mode, but to be pro-active.
Trust not Lambeth, nor the Windsor Process. For there is no help in them. This is not an attempt to put pressure on the current Instruments of the AC. It represents the by-passing of those Instruments in frustration and impatience, and rightly so, for alas, those Instruments have proven themselves to be Instruments of Disunity instead of Unity.
Above all, perhaps, GAFCON represents a decisive shift toward reclaiming a form of Anglicanism in which Doctrine trumps polity, not vice versa. Note well that the basis for fellowship in the future is agreement with the doctrinal foundations espoused in the Jerusalem Declaration.
Now there is reason for concern here, as by itself the rather one-sided emphasis on Doctrine set forth in Jerusalem is dangerously imbalanced. But there will be chances to correct that as time goes on. For the moment it was absolutely necessary to re-assert the primacy of Doctrine within Anglicanism, after it has been sidelined and minimized for so long.
There is a reason after all, why Doctrine has always come first and foremost in the classic Anglican triad of “Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship.” I welcome this correction.
David Handy+
You know, we talk about ENS’ spin all the time. But ENS at least posted stuff (four stories) on GAFCON, including the full text of the final statement (with no commentary. It looks like the commenter at SF who guessed that’s what they’d do — just post it and ignore it — was right).
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_98355_ENG_HTM.htm
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_98243_ENG_HTM.htm
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_98105_ENG_HTM.htm
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_98014_ENG_HTM.htm
ACNS has dead silence
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/index.cfm
Not a word. Wow. 300 bishops in Jerusalem, gazillions of awesome photos all available for use by any media organization for free, and not a word. Amazing.
Never thought I’d see the day when I would prefer ENS to ACNS
Sydney Anglicans has a cool video posted:
Declaration and Ovation: Watch the video of Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi reading the Jerusalem Declaration and the jubilant responses of delegates.
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/media/video/?bcpid=1321273398&bclid=1376842859&bctid=1636629307
It would be good if T19 could post some of the post GAFCON observations from those attending to help us understand the ‘mind of the conference’. In particular these ones have some good detail:
This blog http://solapanel.org/article/gafcon_final_day_making_a_statement/
has some extremely important insight into the hopes and fears of those drafting the statement.
http://masggafconblog.blogspot.com/
This has some detail about the immediate next step – a huge Evangelical conference at All Souls. It would be good if we can get a united evangelical voice out of this conference. Hopefully some calls are being made, and bridges rebuilt on the evangelical side (HINT HINT) to widen the attendance at this conference. Open evangelicals can help refine the message by participating; Broader attendance helps the Reform side by adding numbers. This is a time for unity on the Evangelical wing. Some key COE bishops adding their voice by uniting and attending could provide a key breakthrough.
Thanks Observing. We’d sent those links to Kendall, along with several others. But these days, apart from minor technical things, we’re letting him handle ALL the content, so keep an eye out to see what he posts.
For those who want to check up with all the GAFCON bloggers, our earlier links post which was stickied at the top of the blog all last week is here:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/13560
You can also do a Google blog search on “GAFCON” here, and that provides much interesting opinion and commentary, both pro & con:
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=GAFCON&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d
Let me throw a wrench into the works if I may. Contrary to what I’ve seen posted here, WO will continue to be a very BIG issue in the Common Cause/Gafcon grouping; this is a concern for many who are decidedly NOT Anglo-caths. Just because we had not heard the rumblings as of yet, doesn’t mean that they are not on the horizon. A communion resting on Biblical authority will not rest easy with the WO rock in its shoe. Any guesses as to how this might play out as this new union continues to take shape?
Anyone know if/when KJS or 815 is planning to issue a statement of reaction to GAFCon? I am really wondering what they think of this development.
(woo hoo, post #100!)
Jim Elliott <><
Despite my own critical comments and despite the very legitimate points made by Dr. Tighe and others I great this Statement VERY positively and hopeful, because man is inconsistent (and this can work in a GOOD direction as well as bad) and God is Omnicompetent in turning bad to good and directing the hearts of His faithful in ways they had not intended before. Though I am keenly aware of the strong Protestant nature of GAFCON and of this statement, and of the conflicting attitudes of Protestantism and Catholicism regarding Tradition, which is much more than a matter of adiaphora, STILL, I am hopeful because people can change their minds and mindsets. Luther was not born a Protestant and I was not born nor reared an Anglo-catholic. Circumstances and arguments made both he and me what we both became.
If faithful evangelically minded Anglicans embark on a task of reforming Anglicanism and repairing past errors it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they can be made to see the error of a Protestant mindset that remakes the church according to its own understanding. I am living proof, as a PK raised in a liberal, later turned moderate evangelical, Episcopal home who went on to become an evangelical catholic, that when constantly presented with the truth it can change the minds of some. Who knows but that the strong Protestantism we see is in part from lack of real knowledge of the arguments? I know this makes me sound like a dewey eyed optimist, but so be it, we do believe in evangelism. Don’t we? I became a believer in the big “T†Tradition as a seminarian at TESM, so you know strange things can happen.
GAFCON is no home for Anglo-catholics. It’s no home at all, not for anyone. It is a first step. If we want it to be a first step in a journey toward another Baptist or Presbyterian church then those of us who hold to the catholic Tradition can leave now. If, however, we want it to be a first step toward a church that can actually pull off the reformed catholicism thing then we are going to have to hang in there, bearing patiently with our ignorant and often arrogant, but Gospel centered and Christ following, evangelical brethren, and work at convincing them of the rightness of our path.
We Christians are neither determinists nor fatalists. God did not make us Protestant or Catholic. We were not born that way. We don’t need to die that way. We can change, and He can change us. If God can raise His Son from the dead He can change the minds of Protestants.
I have read the 100 comments above and am struck that they are all shop talk, navel-gazing, and “inside baseball.”
My fellow Western Anglicans, not everything is about us.
Nor will we heal ourselves by being preoccupied with ourselves.
Indeed, if Scripture is any indicator, the more we reach outside ourselves the more the Holy Ghost will in turn heal us.
Nothing worthwhile will be learned by tea-leaf reading the sections about Church Councils, the 39 Articles, etc. Those are mere furnishings in a very large house. The real import is ‘hidden in plain sight’, as it were, in the preamble of the document:
[blockquote]We rejoice in the way God has opened doors for gospel mission among many peoples, but we grieve for the spiritual decline in the most economically developed nations, where the forces of militant secularism and pluralism are eating away the fabric of society and churches are compromised and enfeebled in their witness. [/blockquote]
Beloved, they don’t say ‘spiritual decline in the Episcopal Church‘: they say “spiritual decline in the most economically developed nations“!
Maybe this is not after all a mere euphemism for the elevation of Gene Robinson. Maybe it means what it says, in full generality. And wouldn’t it be right? Aren’t Western Anglicanism’s failures mere shadows? Mere symptoms of a larger, culture-wide spiritual decay?
Yet in terms of a remedy, doesn’t Anglicanism indeed have a unique grasp on the English-speaking world’s encounter with Christ, much as the Declaration suggests?
Ladies and Gentlemen, never mind the bullocks. There is a larger game afoot. Indeed, could we dare call it . . . . a mission?
[blockquote] Unfortunately, not everything the West proposes as a theoretical vision or as a concrete lifestyle reflects Gospel values.
John Paul II [/blockquote]
[blockquote]When asked how far the archbishops were prepared to go to intervene, Akinola replied: “If you receive an SOS from anywhere in the world we will move in.â€[/blockquote]
This is a quotation from the article [url=‘http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/30/anglicanism.religion?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews ]Conservative Anglicans form breakaway church in revolution led from the south[/url], by Riazat Butt and Toni O’Loughlin, The Guardian, 30 June 2008.
This goes right against The Windsor Report and is very worrying in its implications. It seems to provide evidence that the Fellowship may indeed be a ‘church within a church’ as was mentioned earlier in the week, but was carefully left out of the final statement.
#103 Graham Kings
Firstly, Riazat Butt has proven to be a less than worthy journalist through this conference (she seems to like stirring up controversy with out of context and inflammatory material) , so be careful about making judgements based on anything she reports. Understand the context and verify with the source first before reporting anything from there as fact, otherwise you may be misrepresenting someone.
Second, the GAFCON movement is made up of lots of different streams – some more radical that others. Don’t paint the whole movement based on one stream.
And finally, if you want to moderate the extremes in the movement, you need to become part of the movement. This movement has legs and is not going away, it has too much support. You need to climb on the train before it leaves the station. It needs you, and the Anglican Communion needs it.
The UK reporting of GAFCON has been risible and that of Riazat Butt mischievously wrong on occassion. The only reporting worth noting is that of George Conger of CEN and half of the rest of the world’s press [how does he do it?] and Paul Handley of the Church Times/CT blog who has redeemed the reputation of UK journalism to some extent. Suggest relying directly on the audio and video of GAFCON speeches and press conference available on the GAFCON and dio Sydney sites.
And of course Anglican TV linked from the GAFCON site.
It has been interesting – we have been able to check exactly what was said from recordings rather than relying on journalists. It has been very telling indeed.
I suggest that we look at the Jerusalem Declaration as the TRUE “Covenant” that really counts. It is an exercise in “self-differentiation.” And it largely makes the whole process of forging a larger, consensus-based Covenant that includes western provinces dominated by an alien worldview essentially irrelevant and pointless. That is, it renders the Covenant designed by ++Drexel Gomez, ++John Chew, Ephraim Radner, and company very largely moot and irrelevant. They are stuck in first gear; GAFCON has roared past them and will now set the pace.
Let me repeat the strong claim I made above. Contrary to the ACI and Fulcrum, a large part of the meaning of GAFCON is that this movement will no longer tarry for the stalled Windsor Process to work itself out. The Reformation Settlement has failed. The current Instruments have failed. They will be REPLACED.
The trouble with the language of “a church within a church,” as Bp. Bill Atwood rightly noted during one of the press conferences in Jerusalem, is that this familiar phrase has been used in so many different ways by different people. It was used by Philip Spener and the Pietists on the Continent, for example, and that movement fizzled out. Likewise, closer to home, that “church within a church” language was deliberately used by the early leaders of the charismatic movement in TEC when they chose to adopt the name “Episcopal Renewal Ministries.” The whole point was to be non-threatening, with the emphasis on “renewal” instead of “reformation” or something scary like that. And ERM eventually fizzled out too, although in a sense the charismatic renewal of the TEC has not altogether stopped (witness its new resurgence under the gifted leadership of Acts 29 president Fr. Alan Hansen). But as a “movement,” it lost its momentum, or it shifted institutional expression to the still growing Alpha movement.
But I suggest that what GAFCON represents is not merely a major renewal movement similar to the Evangelical Revival under the Wesleys and Whitefield in the 1700s or the Catholic Revival under Newman, Keble and the rest in the 1800s. It is indeed nothing less than a New Reformation, comparable to that unleashed in the 1500s, with all the pros and cons that such a drastic revolution implies.
Let goods and kindred go.
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of high commitment, post-Christendom style Anglicanism of a radically sectarian, unabashedly confrontational, Christ-against-culture (not very English) sort.
#103 Boundary crossing has not been sanctioned by the WR or Primates but the reasons for it [possibly the necessity of it in response to persecution and actions in the face of the WR] understood. Unless the big issues are dealt with [and there are no signs that they are being addressed] this issue will remain as nothing new. There is no point getting upset about it while in denial about the underlying cause as our Instruments are.
I would have to be persuaded however that +Akinola gave that quote as reported by Ms Butt.
Back to the Communique – there is no doubt that they are moving forward to make proper provision for US conservatives rather than leave them to the lawless terrorism of TEC. Over half of the world’s Anglicans have responded in this way – Lambeth has not. Unless this is faced up to the Instruments will continue to undermine themselves.
I completely agree with your #105-6, Pageantmaster, and have been so surprised to recognize the gaps between some of the journalistic coverage (in the US as well) and the actual statements we had access to on ATV and the like, as you point out. Trying to account for the gaps has probably made my imagination overactive! It is very helpful to those not in the UK (since Lambeth will be there) to read your reactions and assessment from time to time.
#109 Rev Handy
One hesitates in the face of your clear knowledge of facts on the ground in the US and elsewhere but if I may offer another perspective.
I don’t see overtly any comment in the Communique on the Windsor Report or Anglican Covenant process. What it does do is to place on the board a clear marker which others, including the Instruments are going to have to take account of and deal with.
If however the Lambeth Conference and the other Instruments proceed in denial of the marker thrown down by the majority of the Communion in Jerusalem then I agree that the scenario you describe may well result. I just wonder if we are quite there yet?
And yes I agree, we are all very much in need of Renewal at this time. Perhaps God is working out his purposes at this time in making the AC fit for His purposes. I pray so.
Sorry my #110 is addressed to #107 Rev Handy not myself at #109. I keep doing this.
#109 TACit – Thanks, however a perspective from other Brits would be good as I am perhaps far too opinionated; it is good that Dr Kings engages here with his view. Would that more did.
Assuming that Akinola said what was reported (which is questionable, at least), still, the claim that this “goes right against the Windsor Report” is not going to get much sympathy in the States or Canada. The U.S. and Canadian churches were called upon to cease same-sex blessings, and neither has done so authoritatively; in fact, the pace has increased. Numerous bishops who authorize directly or implicitly permit such blessings are going to be at Lambeth. The facts on the ground now include the Jerusalem Declaration representing the majority of church-going Anglicans in the world. If the “Windsor process” fails to take account of this it will only demonstrate once again what American Anglicans consider its futility.
I would suggest to our friends in the ACI etc. that Fr. Handy in 107 is right. Windsor is dead and it was killed by the AC and the ABC who had no intention of using it save as a instrument of delay and inaction while alowing the TEC and Canada to continue with their actions. It is simply wrongheaded to suggest that only one group follow Windsor while all others ignore it.
The AC and the ABC have repeatedly proven themselves unreliable. It is time to move on. With the AC if possible and without it if necessary.
And quite frankly I am tired of the interminable squabble between the evangelicals, the Anglo-Catholics and the Charismatics. I am all three and I need all three. Scripture supports all three and whenever one is jettisoned the whole body suffers. If we all insist on doctrinal purity then lets all call it a day and set up our own little enclaves. And while I personally prefer Anglo-Catholic churchmanship I am perfectly content to worship in an Evangelical low church. I am content with an alter or a table. I am content with smells and bells and without. I’m content with a chausable or a surplice by itself (or a business suit even). So long as all three cling fast to Scripture I am content. I am content to acknowledge the real presence of Christ in the Mass or Eucharist without the need to explain it. And I most certainty am not going to squabble over one’s private devotions.
I am suggesting that there is room to respect each others theology on these matters. At the second coming and the last judgment I suspect that one’s churchmanship won’t count for much.
+Jensen repeatedly said this was exactly NOT a new reformation, but a revival, akin to tractarian/evangelical revivals of the past, if God so wills. I suspect he has a better sense of things, given that he was the key leader at numerous points. And having listened to accounts from Bishops and Archbishops about what has been accomplished in Jerusalem, the idea that the Instruments are dead, covenant process now moot, goodbye Archbishop of SE Asia, etc, just seems wacko and not really on topic. The communique says nothing about this. Let’s come back down to earth.
Bruce Ismay: “This ship can’t sink!”
Andrews: She’s made of iron, sir. She can and she will. It’s a mathmatical certainty.”
The older Instruments can choose to be alive if they will; that is, they need to implement the principles of the last Lambeth Conference, the Windsor Report, and the Primates’ communiques.
Dr. Seitz (#115),
With all due respect, I forcefully disagree. Have you forgotten that Archbishop Kolini explicitly endorsed the idea of a “second Reformation?” Yes, I freely confess that Archbishop Jensen was there in Jerusalem and very much involved in the heart of things at GAFCON, and knows FAR more about it than I do.
But to dismiss my views as “wacko” is more than discourteous, it’s an exercise in denial. Now I would actually accept the respectful caveat that Pageantmaster has registered in his thoughtful #110. I may have exaggerated things somewhat, as is my usual wont and in my typical provocative style. That is, the currents aren’t DOA, or dead on arrival yet. But they are mortally wounded, or appear so to me (and to +Duncan etc. etc.). GAFCON has effectively upstaged Lambeth 2008, and seized the initiative. In this I rejoice.
Time will tell who is the dreamer here, with his head stuck in the clouds, fondly imagining a future that won’t come to pass. I contend that it’s the noble but unrealistic leaders of ACI and Fulcrum.
I repeat the claim made above. In the future, it’s abundantly clear that the limits of true Anglicanism will be determined PRIMARILY on the basis of Doctrine, not polity. This is the fundamental shift. And it’s long overdue. Make no mistake, GAFCON is an ecclesial earthquake, at least a 7.0 on the Richter scale.
It is high time to put the Doctrine and Discipline back in the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of Anglicanism. The Windsor Process has failed to do so. To borrow a famous Puritan phrase, GAFCON represents a Reformation “without tarrying for any.”
Or to take a phrase of Br. Michael above, GAFCON doesn’t represent a “shaking the dust off” our feet by those of us representing what Tim Morgan of Christianity Today called “the new paradigm.” In that sense, yes, “Anglicans we are. Anglicans we will remain,” as ++Akinola said. We haven’t written “Ichabod” over Anglicanism in toto and kissed it goodbye, although it may well seem to you and others that this is so. Rather, instead of “shaking the dust off our feet” and moving on to a more receptive town, we are leaving the old wineskins of the AC behind in the dust, as we rapidly move forward, moving so fast that we kick up dust in the face of those slow pokes left behind. I’m sorry, if you’re having trouble breathing because of all the dust in the air. It wasn’t an intentional snub.
But movements do MOVE. They don’t stand still. The Windsor Process has ground to a halt, for all practical purposes. It was effectively aborted by ++Rowan Williams himself. It has failed to contain the spread of pro-gay activism within the western world, much less to reverse it. Much sterner measures are required for that to happen than have been taken so far.
“Come down to earth??” I assure you, Dr. Seitz, my feet are firmly planted on the ground. Or rather, they are repeatedly coming back down to the ground as I RUN toward the future. Movements MOVE; Settlements stay put. GAFCON is a movement, not a moment. We will not wait forever. Those who wish to join us may. The rest will be left behind, yes, in the dust.
In many ways, I think it’s the PACE of change that epitomized the differences between us. You want gradual, incremental, evolutionary change, recognizing rightly that anything else will irreparably split the Church and cause the rupture of the old wineskins of the grand old AC we know and love. And both wine and the old wineskins will be lost. I have given up on those wineskins. That is the fundamental reality. I’ve moved on, like +Duncan, +Atwoood, +Guernsey+, +Minns etc etc. And we have critical mass; the majority of the world’s practicing Anglicans are already on board this departing train as it pulls away from the railroad station.
This is one of those rare but crucial times, when radical, drastic, sweeping change is mandatory. That is, revolutionary change, as opposed to evolutionary change. That is the nature of Reformations.
Let goods and kindred go. The New Reformation is already underway. Soon it’s momentum will be unstoppable. GAFCON isn’t just a one-time event. This is a MOVEMENT, and it is going to MOVE. Those who dawdle and fight rear guard actions on behalf of the old wineskins of the AC will simply get left behind.
David Handy+
Oops. A major blooper in the second paragraph of my previous post. In my haste I left out a key word. I meant, of course, that “the current INSTRUMENTS” of the AC aren’t DOA yet, but only mortally wounded, or at least in very serious jeopardy. As Katherine has just noted, the Instruments will have to ACT forcefully, or be left completely irrelevant.
The time for patient dialogue with unrepentant advocates of a false gospel is over. The time for decisive action has come.
Of course, my critics could easily and aptly point to my previous coment as an illustration of the danger of moving too hastily. And I’ve have to grant that point (grin).
David Handy+
I find it useful to distinguish between a fact and a dream/opinion. Both are good things. They are different, however.
I could not tell if you were being serious or provocative (wacko) because sometimes you move in and out of these roles. You appear to be placing in the former column these things:
1. A Gafcon Council intends to/wishes to/means to, replace the Primates Meeting
2. The Primates would accede to this, including +SE Asia, +WI, +Egypt/Middle East, et al
3. A Gafcon Council intends to/wishes to/means to replace the ABC
4. The ABC will accede to this, will have to
5. A Gafcon Council so designed will be approved by the Tanzania House of Bishops
6. The Jerusalem Declaration intends to replace the Covenant Process, and was written with this in mind
7. A Gafcon Council intends to create a New Province in the US zone
8. The existence of this Council means that if you want to join this Province, you can detach from TEC, take your property/diocese, and win any legal challenge
9. Those on the Council believe this is what they are doing
10. Conservative Bishops like +Love, +Lawrence, +MacPherson, who were there, also follow this scenario and sign on to it
I call these the ‘hopes of David Handy’.
One place where the ‘reformation’ talk does resonant very clearly: Luther’s ‘enthusiasts’ who used his catholic/reformation concerns to a different end than he intended.
But an under-stipulated document always had this danger, I suppose. It will be good to let God drive things and see what He is doing as His time unfolds. Back to work, over and out.
Good morning David. See #70. As I wrote elsewhere this morning, I suggest that GAFCON, which is a plodder’s name, call itself the Instauration, for this is what it is undertaking. I would have suggested The Great Instauration but Bacon might have taken exception and tried to bribe us not to do it. But I like The Instauration because we are trying to put back in place t hat which has been eroded and attenuated by the leaching of the constant drizzle of theological cowardice and accommodation. Larry.
Well, good Dr. Seitz may have gone back to work, but I’ll respond anyway, in the interests of furthering a general discussion of these matters.
I admit that sometimes I indulge in some idealistic hopes and some quite provocative language. But whether that means I’m an enthusiast in the sense of the radicals that Luther so despised (“Schwermerei!”), or that Bp. Joseph Butler so lamented in his famous rebuke of John Wesley, well, that remains to be seen.
I suppose different people will inevitably have different opinions about that. But I don’t see myself as a reckless Carlstadt, much less a Thomas Munster. The ACI and Fulcrum crowd is naturally free to disagree.
But I fear Dr. Seitz is misinterpreting what I’m claiming. I’m not by any means claiming that the new Primates’ Council called for by GAFCON in Jerusalem will immediately replace the AC Primates’ Meeting, nor that such a radical substitution will be accepted and ratified by the current 38 primates. Of course not. I may be a dreamer, but I’m not a fool. Those straw men are figments of his imagination.
Nor am I suggesting that the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury will immediately and summarily be replaced by the Primate of Nigeria in Abuja, and that this will be gratefully and happily accepted by Cantaur, and widely accepted throughout the Communion. Of course not. Can some of you out there help me imagine how the highly intelligent President of the ACI gets such distorted notions in his head?
I do think, from ++Valentino Mokiwa’s own words in Jerusalem, that the Tanzanian HoB will approve the Jerusalem Declaration and associate itself with the GAFCON movement. Time will tell. We shouldn’t have to wait long to find out.
Enough of such point by point responses. You get the idea.
Bottom line: Dr. Seitz wants a nice, negotiated settlement of this crisis, whereby everything is settled by general consensus. No coups or overthrows of the current structures of the AC, if you please, he seems to insist. And that would be nice. But it ain’t gonna happen.
And that is where we part ways. If he and other Com Cons are determined to devote themselves to saving the old wineskins of the AC, that ‘s OK with me. I’ve said so above, or I sure thought I did. But those who cling to the old wineskins will be left behind in the dust.
Because we aren’t dealing with some little splinter group of radicals here. We are dealing with the MAJORITY of the world’s practicing Anglicans. And that decisive (and growing) majority is determined to see a new orthodox province arise from the ashes of the old Anglicanism in North America. That much, at least, is quite clear. And that will happen REGARDLESS of what Canterbury wishes.
I’m not trying to pick a fight here with Dr. Seitz, or Graham Kings etc. I’m just engaging in the discussion here about what GAFCON really means, and what its true significance is. And I’d say that it represents a decisive step forward, a breaking of the impasse or stalemate that has paralyzed the AC for too long.
GAFCON represents the turning of the tide. From now on, the initiative belongs to the orthodox majority, led by the fearless key primates of the Global South, and led here in the US by +Bob Duncan, the visionary and bold leader who has rightly called for a whole new Global Post-Colonial Settlement for Anglicanism.
This is heady, intoxicating stuff. Dr. Seitz may regard me as drunk with delusions of grandeur for this new movement, or beguiled by fantasies of radical reformation that are unrealistic, unnecessary, and highly dangerous. Well, those skeptical hesitations, misgivings, and fears are perfectly understandable, I admit.
AFter all, Anglicanism is an anvil that has worn out many hammers. It’s an “unmoveable mountain” that has successfully resisted many seemingly “irresistable forces,” such as the Puritan movement of the 1500s and early 1600s, the Evangelical movement from the mid 1700s on, and the Catholic movement of the mid 1800s on.
Yes, the famous Elizabethan Settlement has proved very hard to unsettle in the past. But that was in a Christendom era. Now we live in a radically different social context, a thoroughly secularized, post-modern, post-Christendom western world in which an established state church is as dead as the Dodo bird (or very soon will be extinct). And that literally changes everything.
It’s the whole TYPE of church that Anglicanism represents that is now so obsolete, i.e., an Erastian, Christ-above-culture or Christ-the-Transformer-of-culture sort. It’s time for a radically new model of church life, that is openly and unabashedly sectarian and confrontational in its fundamental relationship to the surrounding culture. As long as its a CATHOLIC type sectarianism, of the pre-Constantinian sort. Not the Protestant sort of “enthusiasm” (in the derogatory British sense) or wildly idealistic sectarianism Dr. Seitz is confusing me with.
I know that such a profound, revolutionary change would be most “unEnglish.” But that’s precisely the problem Anglicanism must get over its “Englishness” and escape from the its Anglo-Saxon captivity. That is part and parcel of what it means to be truly “Post-Colonial.” Just read Kevin Ward’s recent “A History of Global Anglicanism” (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007). This transformation is already well underway.
The Global Anglican future will be “Anglican,” but not in the English way. In the future, you won’t have to be an Anglo-phile to be an Anglican.
The New Reformation is here. It is gaining momentum. It already has the backing of the key largest provinces of the Global South. It will prevail. Thanks be to God.
David Handy+
Thoroughly American to the core
I agree with Fr. Handy. Dr. Seitz is presuming too much formality. GAFCON is going to ignore the AC. It will act as if the AC does not exist and it will act as if the ACI does not exist. I don’t know what the reaction of the ABC and the existing instruments of communion will be, and I don’t care nor, I think, does GAFCON . I think that’s the point. And I think that once that sinks in the ACI will turn hostile to GAFCON. They seek to preserve the AC at all costs and they will seek to undermine those of us who are pressing forward.
As far as TEC is concerned it’s a mixed bag. GAFCON does nothing for people and parishes in TEC. They will have to remain in TEC or get out as best they can. However for those who have left and for new church plants it’s a whole new ball game. Their will be a new Anglican structure thay can join and recieve support.
Is it going to be pretty? No.
Is it going to be clean? No.
But it will be moving toward resolution.
I think that Dr. Seitz is wise to call for caution in regards to GAFCON. I have heard many things said about the GAFCON Final Statement that I do not actually see contained in it. Let us consider the status to orthodox TEC bishops and dioceses. I have read that the GAFCON Final Statement has declared that these bishops and dioceses must formally break with TEC and join the Common Cause Partnership in order to be recognized by GAFCON, and the suggestion is made that the Primate of Tanzania then must have had a change of mind about the Communion Partners Plan. I don’t see it.
Consider the following relevant portions of the Statement:
I would suggest that this statement rejects the “authority” of TEC as TEC but not the authority of all the bishops therein. This rejects the authority of TEC acting provinicially – the authority to pass resolutions contradicting orthodox Christian faith, the authority to purportedly depose faithful bishops, etc. I would suggest that this section needs to be read in light of Rowan Williams’ earlier letter to John Howe that the primary unit in Anglicanism is the diocese and its bishop and not the Province. For those who would disagree, ask yourselves if you really think the GAFCON conference rejects the current authority of Bob Duncan, Mark Lawrence, Bruce MacPherson, etc.
There is nothing in these statements preventing a TEC diocese or even a TEC parish from being authenticated as a confessing jurisdiction or congregation. Note also that the Statement explicitly recognizes the desirability of accepting current “provinces or dioceses” except where churches or leaders are subverting the orthodox faith.
Note also the implicit acceptance of overlapping jurisdictions for good reasons.
Finally, although a new North American Province is called for, it is not suggested that this new Province be the exclusive GAFCON-recognized jurisdiction for North America. Rather, I would interpret it more to be a gathering place for non-TEC/ACoC dioceses and parishes.
So overall, I see nothing in the GAFCON Final Statement that rules out the Communion Partners Plan. Personally, I welcome this approach very much. It shows that the GAFCON movement will be practical and will reach out to as many of the orthodox as possible.
Like Dr. Seitz (at least I think this is what he refers to as the Statement being “under-stipulated”) I think that one of the truly wise aspects of the Statement is that it lays out principles but leaves the specific provisions or structures very undefined. In other words, it leaves a lot of room for the GAFCON primatial council to set the actual structures. I would find it odd, to say the least, that the Primate of Tanzania would sign on to the Communion Partners Plan only to renounce that plan the next month. I seriously doubt it.
I think that what GAFCON represents is the shifting of focus of the Global South (as Leander Harding put it) from fighting a defensive battle trying to get Communion discipline imposed on TEC, to that of taking the initiative and setting the Communion agenda. The latter involves stepping into the leadership vacuum created by Rowan Williams’ dithering and the lack of action from the Instruments. I think that if the majority of the Communion experiences a Revival, then a Reformation of structures will follow.
David,
You are correct that being an Anglican now involves much more than wearing your Barbour Rain Coat over a twead jacket and pointing to the leather patches on your elbows while sipping single malt.
The old institutional Anglicanism where everyone who ought to be one already is has long past…and the new Anglicanism is unfolding–and it had better before its churches simply fade away.
In our town the new Anglicanism (AMiA and CANA) already has three times as many Anglicans worshipping on any given Sunday as do the Episcopalians…this is an outward sign of what you are suggesting is taking place around the Communion…the silence from Lambeth has lead to a disinterest in Lambeth…and any church that is going to do its work is going to need to be involved with the gospel and apostolic life instead of simply hoping to fill the house with those who long for English understatement.
People today want a gospel and faith equal to the task of the 21st century living…one that will stand up to the challenges and threats of our multi cultural and multi religious environment…this reformation is not just a dream…it is essential and praise God it is happening…
Don Armstrong
Amen and amen, Don.
+N.T. Wright on the Statement: http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/06/summer-of-schis.html
A portion:
I and my colleagues in this diocese, like so many others, share exactly in the sense that we are a fellowship ‘confessing the faith of Christ crucified, standing firm for the gospel in the global and Anglican context’, sharing too the goal ‘to reform, heal and revitalise the Anglican Communion and expand its mission to the world’ and ‘to give clear and certain witness to Jesus Christ’. For this reason, I know that the GAFCON leaders can’t have intended to imply (as a ‘suspicious’ reading of their text might suggest) that they are the only ones who really believe all this, that they and they alone care about such things. The rest of us, no doubt – including several of us who were not invited to GAFCON – are eager to share in any fresh movements of the Spirit that are going ahead. And as we do so I know that the GAFCON leaders would want us to express the various questions that naturally come to mind as we contemplate what they have said to us. Just as they wouldn’t want anyone to swallow uncritically the latest pronouncement from Canterbury or New York, so clearly they wouldn’t want us merely to glance at their document, see that it’s ‘all about the gospel’, and then conclude that we must sign up without thinking through what’s being said and why. It is in that spirit that I raise certain questions which seem to me important precisely because of our shared goals (the advancement of the gospel), our shared context (the enormous challenges of contemporary society and of a church often muddled in theology and ethics and lacking the structures to cope), and our shared heritage (the Anglican tradition with its Articles, Prayer Books and historic roots).
Central to these questions is the puzzle about the new proposed structure. I am sure the GAFCON organisers are as horrified as I am to see today’s headlines about ‘a new church’. That doesn’t seem to be what they intended. But for that reason it is all the more strange to reflect on what the proposed ‘Primates’ Council’ is all about. What authority will it have, and how will that work? Who is to ‘police’ the boundaries of this new body – not least to declare which Anglicans are ‘upholding orthodox faith and practice’ (Article 11 of the ‘Jerusalem Declaration’), and who have denied it (Article 13)? Who will be able to decide (as in Article 12) which matters are ‘secondary’ and which are primary, and by what means? (What, for instance, about Eucharistic vestments and practices? What about women priests and bishops?) Who will elucidate the relationship between the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer, on the one hand, and the 14 Articles of GAFCON on the other, and by what means? It is precisely questions like these, within the larger Anglican world, which have proved so problematic in the last five years, and the ‘Declaration’ is actually a strange document which doesn’t help us address them. Many at GAFCON may think the answers will be obvious; in some clear-cut cases they may be. But there will be many other cases where they will not. It is precisely because I share the officially stated aims of GAFCON that I am extremely concerned about these proposals, and urge all those who likewise share that concern to concentrate their prayers and their work on addressing the issues in the way which, remarkably, GAFCON never mentioned, namely, the development of the Anglican Covenant and the fulfilment of the recommendations of the Windsor Report. I am delighted that many of the bishops who were at GAFCON are also coming to Lambeth, where their help in pursuing these goals will be invaluable.
In particular, though, there is something very odd about the proposal to form a ‘Council’ and then to ask such a body to ‘authenticate and recognise confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and congregations’ – and then, as an addition, ‘to encourage all Anglicans to promote the gospel and defend the faith’. Many Anglicans around the world intend to do that in any case, and will not understand why they need to be ‘recognised’ or ‘authenticated’ by a new, self-selected and non-representative body to which they were not invited and which will not itself, it seems be accountable to anyone else. Of course, within the larger global context, not least in North America, I can understand the perceived need for something like this. I know how warmly the proposals have already been welcomed by many in America whose situation has been truly dire. But I also know from my own situation the dangerous ambiguities that will result from the suggestion that there should be a new ‘territorial jurisdiction for provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion, in those areas where churches and leaders are denying the orthodox faith or are preventing its spread.’ Sadly, as I suspect many at GAFCON simply didn’t realise, that kind of language has been used, in my personal experience, to attempt to justify various kinds of high-handed activity. It offers a blank cheque to anyone who wants to defy a bishop for whatever reasons, even if the bishop in question is scrupulously orthodox, and then to claim the right to alternative jurisdictional oversight. This cannot be the way forward; nor do I think most of those at GAFCON intended such a thing. That, of course, is the risk when documents are drafted at speed.
In short, my hope and prayer is that the spiritual energy, the sense of celebration, the eagerness for living and preaching the gospel, which were so evident at GAFCON, can and will be brought to the forum where we badly need it, namely, the existing central councils of the Anglican Communion. I understand only too well the frustration that many have felt at these bodies. But if GAFCON is to join up with the great majority of faithful, joyful Anglicans around the world, rather than to invite them to leave their present allegiance and sign up to a movement which is as yet – to put it mildly – strange in form and uncertain in destination, it is not so much that GAFCON needs to invite others to sign up and join in. Bishops, clergy and congregations should think very carefully before taking such a step, which will have enormous and confusing consequences. Rather, GAFCON itself needs to bring its rich experience and gospel-driven exuberance to the larger party where the rest of us are working day and night for the same gospel, the same biblical wisdom, the same Lord.
From NT Wright:
[blockquote] In short, my hope and prayer is that the spiritual energy, the sense of celebration, the eagerness for living and preaching the gospel, which were so evident at GAFCON, can and will be brought to the forum where we badly need it, namely, the existing central councils of the Anglican Communion [/blockquote]
The problem is the participants HAVE DONE THAT, again and again for 5 years, and they were BETRAYED by those councils. That much should be clear from the GAFCON statement.
There is not the will in the communion to impose discipline. The covenant is dead in the water – every liberal province has rejected it out of hand before Lambeth even starts – there is no way they will sign up to anything that stops them moving their agenda forwards.
At some point you have to accept the inevitable. THERE WILL BE NO DISCIPLINE. Now what?
Thanks, Don+ (#125).
Yes, Colorado Springs and much of COL where AMiA and CANA are flourishing are bright spots that show the potential of this New Reformation. Other pockets of hope exist in northern VA, northern FL, southern CA, DuPage Col, IL, Vancouver, and so on. They are the beachheads where this movement is gaining an initial foothold and establishing a necessary base for future operations. But this movement will surely expand greatly in the weeks, months, and years to come, like the Allied invasion of Europe after the landing on the beaches of Normandy in June, 1944.
And I also welcome the helpful and typically perceptive post by jamesw (#124).
James, I too see the GAFCON Communique as actually being carefully restrained and wisely leaving much of the tactical specifics undefined. I also welcome the attempt to gather as many orthodox Anglicans as possible within the wide net of the new province that the Jerusalem statement calls for. There is no explicit criticism of the CPP. There is no premature closure of that door. But there is explicit approval of the CCP. There will doubtless be some messy overlaps for quite a while. But not forever. There is light at the end of the tunnel.
But the key thing is that the impasse is broken. And let’s make no mistake, the breaking up of Anglican ecclesial structures in North America could just as easily happen in liberal dioceses in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and New Zealand etc. It is only a matter of time before it does.
As Jaroslav Pelikan aptly said of the original Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, this new 21st century Reformation is “a tragic necessity.” It’s tragic to be sure. Yes, that is undeniable and not to be minimized. But at the same time, this New Reformation is also inevitable, and even utterly necessary.
The upshot of it all is this: the tide has changed. The MAJORITY of the world’s Anglicans have started to move, and like a freight train in motion, this huge majority will be very hard to stop. Anglicanism will never be the same. In the end, I firmly believe that the best days of Anglicanism are yet to come. Thanks be to God.
David Handy+
[i] Slightly edited by elf to eliminate a private communication to another commenter. [/i]
-Elf Lady
Kendall is quoted in a new article by Time magazine:
[url=http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1819101,00.html
]An Anglican Schism: Headed for US?[/url]
“But if GAFCON is to join up with the great majority of faithful, joyful Anglicans around the world, rather than to invite them to leave their present allegiance and sign up to a movement which is as yet – to put it mildly – strange in form and uncertain in destination…” Strange in form and uncertain in destination? Dr. Seitz, on a spiritual level, it sounds like you’re describing 815 and its willing allies in the CoE.
#131–comments to Gafcon were from +NT Wright.
OK, so NT Wright is in his ‘Rowan’s bad cop’ mode. So what? He’s done that N times before. When he’s in ‘good cop’ mode, he’s often right on, except (as in ‘Simply Christian’) when he’s too tentative to actually say anything too definitive.
Cheers,
Phil Hobbs
Goodness-my apologies, Dr. Seitz.
Oh-and in addition to apologizing to Dr. Seitz for my gaffe, I would like to commend Br. Michael for his insight; you’re predictions, Br. Michael, seem spot on. We mustn’t get too anxious and expect this entire movement in all its particulars to play out in a matter of weeks, though pick up steam it will-inexorably, and precipitously in its appointed time-as I believe [rightly so, I hope] that this is a gracious move of God upon the hearts and souls of Spirit filled, consecrated men [Acts 5:38-39].
We cannot expect this movement to be “pretty” or “clean” as Br. Michael pointed out; but mighty moves of God rarely are.
What I think we WILL see (if we focus our spiritual eyesight), amidst all the upheaval and change, is order-for not a kernel of grain (Amos 9:9) or the lowliest sparrow (Matt 10:29) falls to the ground without His notice. The reason I have such confidence is that God is expressly NOT a God of disorder (1 Corinthians 14:33).
Elishas servant, seeing himself & his master surrounded by the Syrian army was alarmed. “Boss! Boss!! Whatta we gonna do??” Elisha had his spirit glasses on. “Don’t sweat it. We WAAYYYY outnumber them! LORD-open this guys eyes so he can see!” Perhaps we shouldn’t sweat it quite so much either. When God wants to get something done, He has plenty of fiery chariots at His disposal.
Unlike their foes, the GAFCON folks have eyes to see. May they continually hear what the Spirit instructs the church, and obey-and so may God continually guide His people during this time of rebuilding and restoration… “And you will be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water whose waters do not fail.
Those from among you will rebuild the ancient ruins; You will raise up the age-old foundations; And you will be called the repairer of the breach, the restorer of the streets in which to dwell.”