Nevertheless, we believe that Iain has failed to grasp the real position of the Church of England in relation to doctrine and Scripture. His article speaks of the conference redefining ”˜Anglican’ in relation to a historic definition in which membership involves adhering to the established church and being in communion with the see of Canterbury. This is to swallow a definition that has been promoted by Anglo-Catholics since the 19th century. A Catholic view of the church sometimes emphasises order and office at the expense of doctrine and, therefore, the serious misunderstanding that fellowship with the Archbishop of Canterbury is essential to the definition of what it means to be Anglican has been spread abroad. Yet the historic position is that being Anglican essentially involves commitment to biblical doctrine.
That is why the GAFCON Jerusalem Statement insists our identity as Anglicans is expressed in the words of Canon A5: ”˜The doctrine of the Church of England 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’. This is why the Jerusalem Statement then stated: ”˜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’. It is essential to see that the historic and evangelical position is that being Anglican depends on what you believe more than particular features of church life and order.
A lesser point is that Iain queries point 4 of the Jerusalem Declaration which says: ”˜We uphold the 39 Articles as containing the true doctrine of the church’. He says that the word ”˜containing’ is an escape clause. However the intention in this expression is simply to make it clear that while committed to their confession of faith we do not regard the 39 Articles as God’s own words. We have noted that Gresham Machen (Christianity and Liberalism, p.163) complains about ministers who, as required, solemnly declare at their ordination that the ”˜Westminster Confession contains the system of doctrine taught in infallible Scriptures’ and then decry that same Confession. What was good enough for Gresham Machen is good enough for us as well.
[blockquote]‘We uphold the 39 Articles as containing the true doctrine of the church’[/blockquote]
Sounds good, but it can cause the same problems as the statement that the Bible “contains” God’s Word. This allows anyone to decide that they can ignore part (or practically all) of the 39 Articles. This is how the LCMS states its holding to the Lutheran Confessions in its Constitution:
[blockquote]
The Synod, and every member of the Synod, accepts without reservation:
1. The Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament as the written
Word of God and the only rule and norm of faith and of practice;
2. All the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a
true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of
God, to wit: the three Ecumenical Creeds (the Apostles’ Creed, the
Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed), the Unaltered Augsburg
Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald
Articles, the Large Catechism of Luther, the Small Catechism of
Luther, and the Formula of Concord.
[/blockquote]
This leaves no wiggle room.
You can’t have a committment to biblical doctrine unless you have order and office and you can’t have order and office unless you have a committment to biblical doctrine. It’s not an either /or.
Anglo-Catholics don’t define membership as “adhering to the established church and being in communion with the see of Canterbury”. We define it as being in communion with the true successors to the Apostles, and therefore with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as established by our Lord himself and built up and guarded by his Apostles.
Bishop Benn and the Rev’d Mr. Burkill, like a lot of the other folks connected to the GAFCON movement, are fighting a serious misconception of their purpose, one shared by many, both reasserters and reappraisers. There is an impression in those quarters that GAFCON is dedicated to replacing the current diffuse Anglican structure with a new structure that has strong central authorities who can effectively impose discipline on the membership. American reasserters welcome and American reappraisers fear that possibility.
However, it seems clear to me that this is not the GAFCON goal at all. If it were, the movement would not be enjoying such strong support from the Diocese of Sydney, which has [url=http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/10/28/whats-up-down-under/]its own reasons[/url] for preserving provincial and diocesan autonomy. No, the solution offered by GAFCON is very different from creating a global Anglican Church with strong central authorities. It is more about gathering like-minded parties together to form coalitions for mission and ministry that simply ignore questions of formal structure and ecclesiology.
That approach will obviously be more congenial to strong Evangelicals like Archbishop Jensen and Bishop Benn who regard ecclesiology as very much a secondary topic within theology than it will to those who regard the visible Church as the Body of Christ Militant here in earth. Thus, the misconception as to what they are about.
The statement that government by bishops is merely a godly way of running the Church, but is not as important as other concerns, shows that the “Reformed” are running the show, and that Anglo-Catholics should avoid fellowship in the GAFCON group, as there will be no place for Catholic ecclesiology in the church GAFCON has in mind. What Anglo-Catholics should do I’m not sure of, but sticking with Jensen and the others is a fool’s errand.