Ecclesiologically and politically, the two most important claims of the Gafcon Statement and Jerusalem Declaration, taken together, are that 1. the See of Canterbury, while historic, is unnecessary (in a logical sense) to Anglicanism and 2. heretical bishops have left their sees vacant.

If these two claims followed a formal separation from Canterbury, they would have less impact. They could be dismissed as the impotent assertions of another “Protestant sect”. But when the claims are made from within the context of the Anglican Communion they cut to the heart of the Communion-identity.

At present, membership in the Anglican Communion is determined by and through the invitational decisions of the Archbishop. But his dithering failure to exercise his authority in accordance with Communion commitments and agreements (not to mention the Gospel) laid bare the insufficiency of his office as an instrument of unity.

Now in Jerusalem a new confessionally based conciliar structure has arisen within the dying husk of the old. It does not threaten to usurp or unseat Canterbury. Rather it promises to produce a more effective, ordered, and authoritative Anglican instrument that will set Canterbury down into a role that is more accommodating to an emerging post-colonial global Communion.

From the perspective of Canterbury, this represents a significant threat. He faces the prospect of gradual marginalization.

Currently the provinces represented on the Primates Council represent over half of the Anglican Communion. The decisions they take necessarily carry weight. But when they act in ways that are consistent with the Jerusalem Declaration but in conflict with the expressed will of Canterbury they will put Canterbury to the test. The outcome of these tests will determine the shape of Anglicanism.

As more primates join the Council, perhaps even a majority, these tests have the potential to produce tectonic changes in the shape and scope of the Communion.

An illustration
The Jerusalem Declaration effectively declares most North American sees vacant because according to the Declaration’s articulation of orthodoxy most Episcopalian and Canadian dioceses fall far short.

No primate can sit on the council, no bishop or diocese or parish can join the Confessing Anglican Fellowship (CAF) without promising to adhere to the principles and doctrines contained in the declaration.

This means, by the way, that those Communion Conservative leaders who join the CAF no longer have any basis to object to jurisdictional interventions in any diocese ruled by a bishop who permits the blessing of same sex unions or who has rejected orthodoxy in some other way. This puts the “Communion Partners” (CP) bishops (and I am overjoyed that they were here) in the unenviable position of both rejecting interventions as CP bishops and affirming them as CAF bishops.

More broadly, this means that jurisdictional interventions are no longer properly considered “interventions” but true evangelistic missions, proclaiming the gospel where it has been lost. The scope of this declaration of vacancy is unlimited. Any bishop anywhere who rejects orthodoxy loses his authority and his diocese may be evangelized.

This most certainly conflicts with the express will of Canterbury. Some would argue that it conflicts with the Windsor Report but they can only do so by viewing the report outside the context of the Primates’ modification, as if it held inherent authority apart from those who commissioned and received it.

So who wins?
Do jurisdictional boundaries remain sacrosanct without regard for doctrinal faithfulness or is faithfulness a necessary prerequisite for jurisdictional authority? The Confessing Anglican Fellowship holds one position. The Archbishop of Canterbury holds the opposite.

If we were dealing with doctrinal truths alone, it may be possible to maintain a given institutional shape despite deep disagreement. But because we are dealing with a doctrinal dispute regarding structural composition, it necessarily carries the serious potential to shape the institution as a whole. The positions are mutually exclusive. Eventually one will win out and that victory will either result in the reinforced maintenance of the status quo or in significant structural change.

The question of interventions is, of course, not the only point at which the position of the CAF and that of those occupying the present Communion instruments clash but it certainly illustrates the point of this short analysis; that the CAF has the potential to dramatically transform the Anglican Communion.

The Jerusalem Declaration is not a declaration of independence but it is the beginning of an open spiritual and ecclesial struggle for the heart and soul of Anglicanism.

I think it is a necessary conflict, one that must be waged and won if Anglicanism is to remain spiritually vital and institutionally viable. The present instruments have shown themselves to excel only at inhibiting the Gospel and enabling error. They must, therefore, in the words of John Shelby Spong, “change or die.”

The Confessing Anglican Fellowship, in my view, represents the most promising means of introducing “change” and averting death. I believe, further, that it is a sign of grace in the midst of judgment; that God’s glory has not yet departed the Anglican temple.

But I suppose that remains to be seen.