The Global Anglican Future Conference gathered leaders from around the Anglican Communion for pilgrimage, prayer and serious theological reflection. We are grateful to the Archbishop of Canterbury for engaging with the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration. We wish to respond to some of his concerns.
On faith and false teaching. We warmly welcome the Archbishop’s affirmation of the Jerusalem Statement as positive and encouraging and in particular that it would be shared by the vast majority of Anglicans. We are however concerned that he should think we assume that all those outside GAFCON are proclaiming another gospel. In no way do we believe that we are the only ones to hold a correct interpretation of scripture according to its plain meaning. We believe we are holding true to the faith once delivered to the saints as it has been received in the Anglican tradition. Many are contending for and proclaiming the orthodox faith throughout the Anglican Communion. Their efforts are, however, undermined by those who are clearly pursuing a false gospel. We are not claiming to be a sinless church. Our concern is with false teaching which justifies sin in the name of Christianity. These are not merely matters of different perspectives and emphases. They have led to unbiblical practice in faith and morals, resulting in impaired and broken communion. We long for all orthodox Anglicans to join in resisting this development.
On the uniqueness of Christ. We are equally concerned to hear that ‘the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God’ is ‘not in dispute’ in the Anglican Communion. Leading bishops in The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and even the Church of England have denied the need to evangelise among people of other faiths, promoted and attended syncretistic events and, in some cases, refused to call Jesus Lord and Saviour.
On legitimacy. In the current disorder in the Communion, GAFCON came together as a gathering of lay leaders, clergy and bishops from over 25 countries on the basis of their confession of the common historic Christian faith. They formed a Council in obedience to the word of God to defend the faith and the faithful who are at risk in some Anglican dioceses and congregations.
GAFCON, where the governing structures of many provinces were present, affirmed such a Council of the GAFCON movement as its body to authenticate and recognise confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and congregations and to encourage all Anglicans to promote the gospel and defend the faith.
In their primates and other bishops, the assembly saw a visible connection to the catholic and apostolic Church and the evangelical and catholic faith which many have received from the Church of England and the historic see of Canterbury. It is this faith which we seek to affirm.
On authority. As the Virginia Report notes, in the Anglican tradition, authority is not concentrated in a single centre, but rather across a number of persons and bodies. This Council is a first step towards bringing greater order to the Communion, both for the sake of bringing long overdue discipline and as a reforming initiative for our institutions.
Whilst we respect territoriality, it cannot be absolute. For missionary and pastoral reasons there have long been overlapping jurisdictions in Anglicanism itself ”“ historically in South Africa, New Zealand, the Gulf and Europe. In situations of false teaching, moreover, it has sometimes been necessary for other bishops to intervene to uphold apostolic faith and order.
On discipline. Finally, with regard to the Archbishop’s concern about people who have been disciplined in one jurisdiction and have been accepted in another, we are clear that any such cases have been investigated thoroughly and openly with the fullest possible transparency. Bishops and parishes have been given oversight only after the overseeing bishops have been fully satisfied of no moral impediments to their action.
We enclose a response to the St Andrew’s Draft Covenant. (see the subsequent blog entry)
We assure the Archbishop of Canterbury of our respect as the occupier of an historic see which has been used by God to the benefit of his church and continue to pray for him to be given wisdom and discernment.
Signed
The Most Rev Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria
The Most Rev Justice Akrofi, Primate of West Africa
The Most Rev Emmanuel Kolini, Primate of Rwanda
The Most Rev Valentine Mokiwa, Primate of Tanzania
The Most Rev Benjamin Nzmibi, Primate of Kenya
The Most Rev Henry Orombi, Primate of Uganda
The Most Rev Gregory Venables, Primate of The Southern Cone
July 18 2008
Sorry but doesn’t this still seem rather waffling on the key question put to GAFCON by ABC, NT Wright and others: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The money paragraph on authorization and legitimacy appears to sit distressingly loose to historic notions of catholicity: we authorize ourselves, we alone can tell who’s confessing and who’s not. “GAFCON… affirmed such a Council of the GAFCON movement as its body to authenticate and recognise confessing Anglican jurisdictions”
Hoskyns: I think that both you and Bp. Wright misunderstand what GAFCON is claiming here. They are not claiming to be a Communion-authorized arbiter of orthodoxy. Rather they are saying that there is theological anarchy in the Anglican Communion, and that *for their part* they are banding together to form the nucleus of a new movement for orthodox theological stability. They lay out their definition of theological stability and invite others to join in. As any mission-minded (mission in the generic sense) organization, there must be some way to authenticate would-be-joiners as ones who agree with the mission. In the midst of chaos, there must be some place to begin, some place to begin to rally your forces. And for the Anglican Communion, that place where the rally is beginning is GAFCON. It is not the end, it is not a rival Communion, it is not claiming to be the new Anglican authority. It is simply claiming to be the rally point.
I simply do not understand the problem with the archbishops setting policy. If they can’t/shouldn’t lead, who should?
Don
[blockquote]”. . .attended syncretistic events . . . .”[/blockquote]
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2172918.stm] [u]Ouch[/u].[/url]
GAFCON to Canterbury (and of course, that means his evil twin KJShori):
We will be taken seriously.
See, “CANTERBURY: Lambeth Conference no longer defines who is an Anglican, Anglican Bishops Who Should have been at Lambeth” DVirtue’s article with a comprehensive lengthy list of Bishops not attending Lambeth” http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8657
Except for Bennison, I agree with Virtue, if Anglicanism were not in such a shambles and tatters, from the many theological assaults and infections, the communion would be more united and all would be as glad to fellowship in the unity that truth and mutual respect and equality allow.
Hoskyns:
I understand your concerns to some degree, but I generally agree with jamesw.
The GAFCON alliance (or FOCA) certainly has to begin to do more to practice what it has preached; i.e., it must begin to justify its proposed plans based on the principles behind the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, the principles of the 39 Articles regarding scriptural interpretation and church authority, and the teaching of the New Testament as applied or elaborated upon by the Church Fathers. For instance, I am very concerned that the response of the GAFCON Theological Resource Team to the St Andrew’s Draft does not offer any elaboration of biblical teaching on any specific doctrine, much less show any concern for how the traditional Anglican formularies or the Church Fathers deal with the authority of Scripture or doctrines of eschatology and sanctification. The language used implies such a self-confidence by the GAFCON team in their understanding of and commitment to the authority of Scripture that they appear to think that they are exempt from actually having to quote or reference any scriptural passages. This is troubling.
However, on the matter of [i] quis custodiet ipsos custodes? [/i], the response of the GAFCON primates to the comments of critics who did not themselves speak clearly from a stance of established principles of the Tradition of the Church or the New Testament or even the historic patterns of authority within Anglicanism does not necessarily call for an in-depth, canonical or ethical sort of defense. I think some things are fairly self-evident and simply don’t need to be reiterated in greater detail. We do have a number of heresies that are commonplace in North America that so closely resemble or rework ancient heresies that are named in the councils of Nicea and Constantinople that are clearly not going to be disciplined by the current national church hierarchies. It is the role of Anglican bishops to defend the Faith of the one apostolic and catholic Church and “to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word” according to the principles of Holy Scripture and the ancient canons. No legitimately established church leaders should have to defend their intent to be guided by the Holy Spirit, the New Testament, and the entirety of orthodox Anglican tradition as they prepare to deal with a set of serious theological problem that should have been dealt with long ago. I think this is especially true when those critics themselves have not sufficient challenged heretical teaching when it has been their responsibility as leading theologian academics to do so.
At this stage, the GAFCON primates have not yet taken any specific action and therefore do not need to justify their cause of action. Furthermore, the initial step that has been proposed (a church council or synod) is not something that is strictly circumscribed historically or canonically. Regional synods of the Church can be called for any number of reasons and it is how the evidence against false teaching or false teachers is presented that should concern us, not that a synod may be called. Many regional or local councils in the history of the Church seemed fairly insignificant at the time, but grew in importance as the generations passed (the Council of Trullo and the the Synod of Orange come to mind). Though many of these synods were not perfect, ultimately all of God’s people were served by the courage of those who called for them and by their having happened.
What is Canturbury’s problem with GAFCON’s existance?
Is he saying that within the Anglican Communion, that there cannot co-exist various affiliations of Anglicans that are also members in ‘full-standing’ of the Communion? Such as GAFCON?
Is he saying that primacy’s such as ECUSA can act in radical defiance of “…the Faith once given” and that orthodox Anglicans can’t affiliate in defense of “…the Faith once given…?”
Is Canturbury saying that “…the Faith once given…” is less important than the ‘human-contrived’ rules and regulations that are being the defense and maintenance of “…the Faith once given…?”
Canturbury is acting like a career bureaucrat who is ‘locked into’ the mechanics of his bureaucracy and who has lost sight of the ‘true mission’ of his bureaucracy.
In short, its seems that Canturbury has determined that the rules of the Anglican Communion are much more important than its mission.
In my comment #7, please correct
“Is Canturbury saying that “…the Faith once given…†is less important than the ‘human-contrived’ rules and regulations that are being the defense and maintenance of “…the Faith once given…?â€
to read
“Is Canturbury saying that “…the Faith once given…†is less important than the ‘human-contrived’ rules and regulations that are being to PREVENT the defense and maintenance of “…the Faith once given…?â€
These Primates are doing a fine job. Having been denied by Canterbury the ability to meet as a Communion-wide group, they have met as a voluntary association and they are saying what they would have wanted to say as a larger group, except that these statements are much clearer and stronger because Canterbury has, by inaction, removed the liberal Primates from the process. He will live to regret not having called that Primates’ meeting.
#1:
In my opinion quis custodiet ipsos custodes has failed the Anglican Communion. Any communication from any one of the Instruments that is against the agenda of TEC has been roundly ignored or condemned or both. So if none of these carry any authority, there is no use propagating British bureaucracy to church structures (because of our Anglican heritage) – the end result is the same – commissions, letters, articles and speeches with no discernable outcome. I would also argue that such spiritual waffling is one of the primary reasons there is no growth in the (Western) church.
Re [i]waffling[/i]:
Should the Church have authoritarian leaders or servant leaders?
A servant leader may often appear to be waffling.
And whose joke is the following?
[blockquote]
Q. Why does a rabbi often answer a question with a question?
A. Why not?
[/blockquote]