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 \u201d\u02dcAnglican\u2019 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.<\/p>\n
That is why the GAFCON Jerusalem Statement insists our identity as Anglicans is expressed in the words of Canon A5: \u201d\u02dcThe 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\u2019. This is why the Jerusalem Statement then stated: \u201d\u02dcWhile 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\u2019. 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.<\/p>\n
A lesser point is that Iain queries point 4 of the Jerusalem Declaration which says: \u201d\u02dcWe uphold the 39 Articles as containing the true doctrine of the church\u2019. He says that the word \u201d\u02dccontaining\u2019 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\u2019s 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 \u201d\u02dcWestminster Confession contains the system of doctrine taught in infallible Scriptures\u2019 and then decry that same Confession. What was good enough for Gresham Machen is good enough for us as well.<\/p>\n