Welcome to Stand Firm!

GAFCON Final Statement

Saturday, June 28, 2008 • 3:54 pm

Please note that uncorrected version of the statement have “Recognise GAFCON Primates’ Council.” The corrected text is “Encourage GAFCON Primates’ Council.”


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 GAFCON Primates’ 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.

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


231 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

Well that didn’t take to long, OK that’s postable now.

[1] Posted by Peter on 06-28-2008 at 05:02 PM • top

Praise the Lord Jesus Christ from whom all blessings flow and to whom all are welcome to recieve the <b>transforming & life saving,/b> grace that only He can give!
Amen!

[2] Posted by TLDillon on 06-28-2008 at 05:07 PM • top

Thanks be to God for the witness of all who attended GAFCON and for this magnificent new work begun to His glory.

[3] Posted by physician without health on 06-28-2008 at 05:08 PM • top

No divorce here then.

That will cause some interesting parsing.

[4] Posted by Martin Reynolds on 06-28-2008 at 05:09 PM • top

This seems very good.

A clear ananlysis of the current state of the Anglican Communion, a strong statement of faith & doctrine (differentiation), and a primatial council (for both future development and discipline). 

Praise God from whom all blessings flow!

[5] Posted by Fr. Andrew Gross on 06-28-2008 at 05:10 PM • top

Praise God for the tears of joy that flowed on reading this.

http://www.vermontanglicans.org

[6] Posted by wchogan on 06-28-2008 at 05:16 PM • top

Sure hope MissMurphy didn’t give up the computer.

[7] Posted by JackieB on 06-28-2008 at 05:20 PM • top

Wow!

Now that’s a good, strong Declaration. I’m both impressed and gratified by its strength—and struck, in fact, by the remarkable number of parallels which it has with the Affirmation of St. Louis. Granted that there are some significant theological differences between the two documents—nonetheless this seems to be just as bold and direct a statement of disaffiliation from PEcUSA’s apostasy and institution as that one was.

.

I look forward to seeing the membership, authority and ‘powers’ of this “GAFCON primate’s council” being articulated and clear norms for “in communion” set forth (e.g. may GAFCON jurisdictions be in communion with jurisdictions which reject the principles of the Jerusalem Declaration, or which remain in communion with PEcUSA and the AciC… or clergy & parishes still formally in those organizations?)

.

Having made a statement of faith & principle, the next great challenge is to agree on leadership, structure, and institutional norms. This is the step where the Continuing Church movement—having issued its Affirmation of St. Louis—stumbled, breaking into the ACC, the PCK, and the ACC Canada.

I hope the GAFCON leaders learn the lesson from the Continuing Church’s misstep and are able to maintain cohesion in the challenging next few years.

My prayers will be with them.

pax,
LP

[8] Posted by LP on 06-28-2008 at 05:20 PM • top

A brotherly hug for you, LP!

[9] Posted by Theodora on 06-28-2008 at 05:22 PM • top

Standfirm has behaved in a despicable way!  Shame on you for violating the embargo.  You know it was embargoed until the meeting tomorrow. Yet you went ahead and put it up anyway.

What an awful thing you have done.

[10] Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:22 PM • top

LP, praise from you?!?!  Now that’s something…! I was very excited to read this, but if you like it too, it MUST be good!  LOL wink

[11] Posted by Karen B. on 06-28-2008 at 05:22 PM • top

Marvelous! Thanks be to God!

[12] Posted by texanglican on 06-28-2008 at 05:23 PM • top

It is elsewhere - see Fulcrum ......

[13] Posted by Martin Reynolds on 06-28-2008 at 05:24 PM • top

George Conger—what on earth are you talking about???

Fulcrum has had it up forever, along with Ruth Gledhill and Episcopal Cafe.

[14] Posted by Sarah on 06-28-2008 at 05:25 PM • top

Note Kendall’s comment about why he is posting it, which is the same reason we did.
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/13784/

[15] Posted by Sarah on 06-28-2008 at 05:26 PM • top

Mr. Conger, Fulcrum definitely had the Communique up first because I copied it there.  I am very sorry for your disappointment.

[16] Posted by Theodora on 06-28-2008 at 05:27 PM • top

george you have done admirable work this week, good job.  Unfortunately the document got out to fulcrum and episcopal cafe and ruth gledhill and then it went all over.

SF had no intention of violating an embargo, there was a big lack of clarity as to when the embargo actually was based on the communication friday night saying the document would be available at 10 p.m. Jerusalem time. Apparently this changed but it was easy to get confused about it, alas.

[17] Posted by Kendall Harmon on 06-28-2008 at 05:27 PM • top

Um, I know George Conger isn’t intending to be a troll here.  I understand his concerns about the confusion and the breech of embargo.  It’s unfortunate. 

But, it seems to me the discussion of the embargo could pull the whole thread off topic, which would be highly unfortunate.

[18] Posted by Karen B. on 06-28-2008 at 05:29 PM • top

I was ordained 38 years ago and I have longed for something like this day each of those days since!  Praise the Lord! Amen and Amen!

[19] Posted by David+ on 06-28-2008 at 05:31 PM • top

No question in my mind who we are…and who “they” are. Choose this day!!
Intercessor

[20] Posted by Intercessor on 06-28-2008 at 05:31 PM • top

Because others do wrong you should do wrong also?  There is no lack of clarity in a statement that says it is embargoed until 8:00 BST.  Fulcrum copied it from Standfirm and refused to take it down.

[21] Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:33 PM • top

#10 George Conger,
I believe that Episcopal Cafe the liveral revisionist site had it up before Stand Firm did! Have you made your disgust known over there as well?

[22] Posted by TLDillon on 06-28-2008 at 05:33 PM • top

LP, praise from you?!?!

Hey! Though I’ve never hidden the fact that, as an Affirmation-of-St-Louis anglocatholic, I have some significant differences with certain angloprotestant beliefs, I hope I have also always given credit where credit is due. If some of my posts are occasionally less “triumphalist” than some would like to read, that has merely been b/c of honestly speaking from that different perspective, not from any malice, ill-wishing, or lack of Christian charity. (Indeed, quite the opposite—charity often is in saying “hey, look out for X!”)

I see in this Declaration—despite my theological differences from it (e.g. in that it rejects 3 Ecumenical Councils, or that it makes the 39 Articles more normative than patristic Tradition)—quite a number of positive things. Indeed, see many of the positive things I said I was hoping for in my “what would you like to see” post (which GG deleted.) Particularly:
* Scriptural authority: “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.”
* Marriage and fidelity
* Rejecting apostates: “We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed.”

I think this statement of principles is a good first step toward a clear catechetical profession of faith and a clear deliniation of who—based on that statement of faith—is “in” and “out” of sacramental communion with “Jerusalem Declaration Anglicans”... the two things which I said (again in that deleted post) I thought would be most essential for GAFCON to produce.

And while I recognize that, in the places where they differ, the Jerusalem Declaration and the Affirmation of St. L. are ultimately not, as it were, “jurisdictionally compatible”, that doesn’t prevent me (again, as I said in that deleted post) from seeing in these two key points a positive and hopeful signs for a healthy “angloprotestant jurisdiction”...

... nor prevent me from, in fraternal Anglican well-wishing, sharing in their encouragement and joy!

pax,
LP

[23] Posted by LP on 06-28-2008 at 05:35 PM • top

Will the new North American Province include churches that are also members of TEC?  Not sure how that is going to work.

[24] Posted by Chazaq on 06-28-2008 at 05:35 PM • top

It seems academic now?  Once it gets out on the internet there is little point holding an embargo.  Many folks won’t know there was an embargo anyway - and if they did would hardly feel obliged by it - so holding the line becomes futile.

[25] Posted by Peter on 06-28-2008 at 05:37 PM • top

No, Fulcrum got it from us. It was my fault. I’ve explained to George in a private email.

[26] Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 05:38 PM • top

Everybody, please lay off George and let’s discuss the statement itself. The situation surrounding the embargo will make for interesting reading one day, but not now.

[27] Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 05:39 PM • top

FWIW - it was most certainly up on Ruth Gledhill’s blog well before it was up on StandFirm.  I know this because I did not see it on SF, then went over to Gledhill, saw it, read it, surfed back to SF where it was not yet posted, wrote up a post, tried to post it but couldn’t, then refreshed the page a couple of times, and there it was on SF.

[28] Posted by jamesw on 06-28-2008 at 05:40 PM • top

George,
Since you are there in Jerusalem with Ruth Gledhill, why don’t you ake her why she didn’t adhere to the embargo and let her know dhow disappointed you are in her as well!
Now on to bigger and better things…..How will this effect Lambeth if it does at all? Any body game to ponder?

[29] Posted by TLDillon on 06-28-2008 at 05:40 PM • top

Here is the sequence of events.

Standfirm publishes first.  Fulcrum copies.  Episcopal Cafe copies Fulcrum.  Look at the time stamps. 
Standfirm 4:54
Episcopal Cafe 5:37

Now it is out, the AP has it, and you guys did it.  Shame on you for ruining the final day of the conference.

[30] Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:41 PM • top

Once it’s posted it’s accessible through internet caches.  I had it from bloglines and was mulling over whether to post - decided I didn’t want to do a Virtue so didn’t.  However, once SF went live then so did we, fair game at that point.

[31] Posted by Peter on 06-28-2008 at 05:41 PM • top

I’m cross posting my comment from T19 just now.  Hope that’s ok.  I assume the different sites will attract slightly different readers and emphases.
——

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!!!

[32] Posted by Karen B. on 06-28-2008 at 05:41 PM • top

ODC,

Ruth is not in Jerusalem any more. Let’s focus on the statement.

[33] Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 05:41 PM • top

Sounds like it was more of a mistake than anything else?

[34] Posted by Peter on 06-28-2008 at 05:42 PM • top

George, please check your email from me.

[35] Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 05:43 PM • top

Folks—please get onto topic, thanks.

It’s Greg’s fault entirely—The Southern Anglican Women StandFirm Bloggers Association has made this clear on literally thousands of matters here—and I hope that everybody now understands why he merely makes a few minor technical changes occasionally, and why we assigned him the 5 Episcopal Therapists . . .

[36] Posted by Sarah on 06-28-2008 at 05:44 PM • top

I did ask a question….....How will this effect Lambeth or will it?

[37] Posted by TLDillon on 06-28-2008 at 05:44 PM • top

Sarah Hey ... here is the email I received from Greg Griffith….

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 1:28 AM, Greg Griffith <greg@greggriffith.com> wrote:

  I know you assumed we broke the embargo, but it was an honest mistake.

  I was drafting my post and published it, and immediately removed it. In the 20 seconds that it was up, Bloglines grabbed our RSS feed.

  Graham grabbed the text from the Bloglines cache. Then Naughton grabbed it from Graham and Ruth followed immediately.

  We did not “behave despicably.” I made an honest mistake and tried to correct it.

  G

[38] Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:45 PM • top

Uh George?

Are you reading any of the comments here?

[39] Posted by Sarah on 06-28-2008 at 05:47 PM • top

ODC, that’s obviously the million dollar question at the moment, isn’t it?  (Though closer at hand is the big meeting at All Souls Langham on Tuesday, which will be a key guage of CoE support)

I’m thinking that the fact that GAFCON Primates ++Venables and ++Mokiwa will be at Lambeth is now very very key.  There needs to be someone at Lambeth to champion the GAFCON document and explain it to other bishops.  Those GAFCON bishops going to Lambeth now need our increased prayer support!

[40] Posted by Karen B. on 06-28-2008 at 05:48 PM • top

You mean . . you had that email and continued posting comments on this thread, despite Greg’s being at fault, saying that he was at fault, and even though he’s asked people to talk about the statement?

Wow.

Just wow.

I got it now, George.

[41] Posted by Sarah on 06-28-2008 at 05:48 PM • top

You don’t seem to get it do you Sarah.  Integrity means doing the right thing, no matter what the consequences.  You are not doing the right thing.

[42] Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:51 PM • top

Yup, Chazaq nailed it.

[43] Posted by James Manley on 06-28-2008 at 05:52 PM • top

Oh, I get it George—I get you.

Learned a lot on this thread.

[44] Posted by Sarah on 06-28-2008 at 05:53 PM • top

George, it seems that it was a mistake, not intentional.  Not amatter of integrity, more a matter of finger trouble and overzealous blog cache software.

I am sorry that this happened, but it can’t really be undone now?

[45] Posted by Peter on 06-28-2008 at 05:55 PM • top

Sarah,
lets’ talk about the statement. It is of great moment and a fantastic achievement .In the meantime perhaps Standfirm might have a private talk among yourselves and come out with a apology to Gafcon so we can put this behind us. It is a bright crisp morning here in Sydney, the birds are singing heralding a new beginning. I am off to church to give thanks for te work of my brothers and sisers in jerusalem.

[46] Posted by obadiahslope on 06-28-2008 at 05:55 PM • top

Well spotted George Conger, I apologise for trying to point elsewhere I see you have a very good point.

[47] Posted by Martin Reynolds on 06-28-2008 at 05:57 PM • top

The integrity comes in by keeping it up.  You know you have done wrong.  You can fix it by taking this posting down.

Sarah, I am happy to play the snide games with you and to compare my work in the trenches to yours.  However, this is a question of principle, and it is hypocritical to take others to task for lack of principle when you are at fault. 

A mistake was made in posting it.  The bad act was putting it back up, even though you knew it to be wrong, when others copied it from you.  Two actions here ... and I am talking about the second ... putting it back up when you knew you should not have.

[48] Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 05:59 PM • top

Mr. Conger,

This discussion should be taken off line. You are not at the center of the Church and neither is Greg. God’s will for us is that the GAFCON statement was released here first.

Thanks be to God.

[49] Posted by Dr. N. on 06-28-2008 at 06:03 PM • top

RE: “Sarah, I am happy to play the snide games with you and to compare my work in the trenches to yours.”

I’m not—I couldn’t care less about either *my* or *your* “work in the trenches” . . . [roll eyes] . . .

If you think that it is wrong to post this post right here [setting aside Greg’s initial accidental post that got picked up] then make sure you tell Kendall also to take his down and that he also has no integrity.  Fulcrum too . . .

I don’t think Kendall—or Greg—lacks integrity.

But again . . . I’ve learned alot by observation of this thread right here, George.

And thankfully . . . others are too.

[50] Posted by Sarah on 06-28-2008 at 06:05 PM • top

Mr. Conger,
Thank you for your participation at Stand Firm, however, the subject of the early posting is now off-topic. Greg made an honest mistake.  The post is now all over the blog.  There is no way to unring the bell. 
To all -
Please remain on topic in discussing the statement and there is a lot for us to discuss.

[51] Posted by JackieB on 06-28-2008 at 06:08 PM • top

George, So much bitterness.  The fact of the matter is that the cheese is out of the can, and nothing’s going to change that.

StandFirm can take down the post, but that would have zero effect.  Actually, the effect would be worse than zero, as most of us here would rather not have to go to Episcopal Cafe to get our news.

Soooo, we can all rejoice in the content of the GAFCON statement, or we can just sit around listening to you exercise your ego over an honest mistake.

[52] Posted by Fr. Andrew Gross on 06-28-2008 at 06:08 PM • top

Chazaq asked: [24]

Will the new North American Province include churches that are also members of TEC?  Not sure how that is going to work.

I’m not sure either. In view of Paragraph 13, We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed, I don’t see how an orthodox parish in a diocese with an actively revisionist bishop could be admitted unless it left TEC. Or, rejecting the authority of “those churches” (not just “those leaders”) who have denied the faith may mean that all connections whatsoever to TEC must be cut before any body, whether parish or diocese, could be a part of the new Confessional Anglican structure. At least that is how it sounds to me on a first reading.

[53] Posted by kyounge1956 on 06-28-2008 at 06:10 PM • top

I did ask Kendall Harmon to take his posting down, both in a comment and in an email.  Whether he does or not will speak to the issue.

[54] Posted by George Conger on 06-28-2008 at 06:10 PM • top

I guess I’m missing something here.  I got sent the e-mail too and saw the time and put it up.  What does GMT mean?  I thought it was Greenwich time, when is London Time which means it’s 5:00 p.m. East Coast Time? 

This is what was sent to me:

Press Release

Embargoed till 10:00 /8:00 GMT June 29, 2008

 

28 June 2008

Final GAFCON statement

We apologize that it has taken a bit longer to finalize the final draft of the GAFCON statement.

A printed version of the statement will be presented and read to the pilgrims in the plenary on Sunday June 29, at 9.45am, for a brief final review and adoption.

There will be a press briefing at 2.00pm in the Delila Room of the Renaissance Hotel.

What does 10:00/8:00 GMT mean - 10:00 where?  8:00 where?  I don’t even know what 2:00 p.m. means - London Time?  Washington Time?  Is Jerusalem on London Time? 

Maybe we can just be careful with each other and watch out and not throw accusations at our brothers and sisters right now.  No one knows another person’s heart.  We’re all trying as hard as we can to cover GAFCON and the statement is FANTASTIC.  Absolutely fantastic.  Jesus is Lord.

Obviously, we are all on Holy Spirit Time, not GMT.  That’s one thing I think we know for sure.

bb

[55] Posted by BabyBlue on 06-28-2008 at 06:11 PM • top

Hmm, fair point George.  It would be academic, but right to take it down - if SF had agreed to the embargo before receiving the document. 

That aside, it’s a great statement and I am very grateful for the work the Lord has done here!

[56] Posted by Peter on 06-28-2008 at 06:12 PM • top

BB—note the date—the 29th.

[57] Posted by Sarah on 06-28-2008 at 06:13 PM • top

Babyblue,
GMT is Greenwich Merdian Time! Across the Thames!

[58] Posted by TLDillon on 06-28-2008 at 06:14 PM • top

BB - Do you think Lambeth will now take up the challenge that has been thrown down?  Will it change the agenda for the tea party?  What, if any, TEC bishops will come on board?

[59] Posted by JackieB on 06-28-2008 at 06:15 PM • top

George, I don’t see the comment from you at T19.

??

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/13784

[60] Posted by Sarah on 06-28-2008 at 06:16 PM • top

So, y’all are fighting among yourselves already?!  What embargo, don’t need no stupid embargo (says someone who knows nothing about the subject.)

Now from the NASCAR Province statement on this historic moment:  We see this as a parallel Anglican organization of Bible/True Gospel believers and aloof from the apostacy.  There will be overlap with TEC and COE but no authoritavive connection.  It will also consist of anglicans outside TEC and/or ABC.  The question now is how will the Global Anglican Communion practice discipline?  Any organization has to have a process of credentialing membership and a method to expell from membership.  Guess they will do that soon.  Since the two groups will drift apart after a while, another question is what will TEC/ABC do about the new group within their area?  Probably nothing except 815 may feel obligated to bring litigation since that is their distinctive.  Thus endeth the Encyclical of NASCAR HOLY SEE

[61] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 06-28-2008 at 06:19 PM • top

Yes George, that would appear to be the only thing that HAS come off T19

[62] Posted by Martin Reynolds on 06-28-2008 at 06:19 PM • top

Oh, just saw the date!  Good heavens.  Today is June 28, tomorrow is June 29.  See, I misunderstood the e-mail, too.  I think we’re safe to say that it was posted in good faith. 

I think it’s also safe to say that we’re all on Holy Spirit Time (HST) now.  He is rather notorious for not sticking to man-made schedules, isn’t He?

bb

[63] Posted by BabyBlue on 06-28-2008 at 06:19 PM • top

Good Statement.

What this means in practice is important:

</blockquote>
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.</blockquote>

[64] Posted by R. Scott Purdy on 06-28-2008 at 06:20 PM • top

This is an important post and thread. Could the moderators clear it of the “off-topic” stuff.

GMT is London Time (US Eastern Daylight time + 4 hours). 8:00 am in London is 10:00 am in Jerusalem and 4:00 am in New York. 2:00 pm (1400 hrs) in Jerusalem is noon in London and 7:00 am in New York.

[65] Posted by Dr. N. on 06-28-2008 at 06:21 PM • top

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.

Who, what, & when?

[66] Posted by R. Scott Purdy on 06-28-2008 at 06:27 PM • top

Karen,
I was thinking about your post.  It seemst to me that this is a stand alone statement/direction.  Although the support of English evangelicals and the incorporation of provinces such as SE Asia, the Middle East, etc. would be fantastic, it doesn’t seem to me to be absolutely necessary. 

Niether does there need to be any sort of timetable.  It seems to me that groups should be given the space and time to discern and join as they feel the need, either next week or in the next couple decades.

As for Jensen, although I have appreciated his leadership, it makes sense to keep the leadership of the council in the hands of the Primates.  If one bishop (non-Primate) has a seat, it opens up a door to more, and more, and more.

As for the 39 articles and anglo-catholicism, all I can say is that I sincerely hope that there is plenty of room for anglo-catholics.  Like you, I’m curiuos to see how this will unfold.

[67] Posted by Fr. Andrew Gross on 06-28-2008 at 06:27 PM • top

Here in London it is 29th June 00:27 Summer Saving which is GMT+1.  A plea that this thing not be birthed in rancour but any sorting out be done off-line.

[68] Posted by Pageantmaster ن [Repent Justin Welby] on 06-28-2008 at 06:27 PM • top

From the outset, the reasserters have been consistent in articulating the need for structural differentiation in order to maintain their identity.  In the Dar es Salaam APO plan, the Pastoral Council would have been composed of five persons—two appointed by KJS, two appointed by the primates, and one by the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Given her influence with the Archbishop, KJS could have controlled the majority.  Yet the HoB replaced it with the Episcopal Visitor Plan (DEPO for bishops), which failed to meet the need for differentiation. 
It strikes me that this is a pay now or pay later situation.  TEC has chosen to pay later.

[69] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 06-28-2008 at 06:29 PM • top

I certainly hope that there is better unity, kinship, and communication among the GAFCON participants than we have thus far seen displayed. I am a member of a parish that left TEC for AMIA and am very much gladdened to see that these bishops will continue to provide oversight and pastoral care to those who need it and that they feel it is time for a new province in North America that incorporates the Common Cause. Now we just have to sort out those pesky little details.

[70] Posted by ConcernedAnglican on 06-28-2008 at 06:30 PM • top

Greetings.  This statement from GAFCON is great.  But it means absolutely nothing.  Yes it means absolutely nothing because the primates did not have the courage to divorce the Conference from the heresies of Canterbury and the Communion.  For as long as GAFCON remains inside trying to reform the Communion, it will remain nothing.
========================================================
One another note, do you think that GAFCON is going to in anyway be collaborating and including the continuing Anglican churches? That answer is a resounding no.  There is to much of a political and structural difference they will not try to get into when it comes to valid lines of apostolic succession.  For this reason the GAFCON will continue to politly kiss off with a pointed finger at them.  Even a new Anglican province in the USA would do the same thing.  It would not be feasible for any of them to do.  Nor would it be stragetically or morally right for them to do so.
+Stonewall

[71] Posted by BishopOfSaintJames on 06-28-2008 at 06:31 PM • top

In this day and age, if you want something embargoed, you don’t give it to the media.

Back on topic, a very interesting statement.  I look forward to seeing how things play out. 

At some point, if those more knowledgeable could talk about some of the significant differences between 1662 and, say, 1928 TEC, that would be helpful.

[72] Posted by DavidH on 06-28-2008 at 06:32 PM • top

We did not agree to an embargo before we got the document. No embargo was ever mentioned until the statement came through.

The subject line of the email from GAFCON was:

“Final GAFCON statement”

Attached was a PDF. I opened the PDF, copied the text, and posted it.

We had been told in a media advisory that the statement would be RELEASED at 2pm Central time. When the email came through at 3:46, I assumed they were just finally getting out to releasing it.

When I realized that in the body of the email GAFCON had requested it be embargoed, I pulled the post down. It was up for perhaps 20 seconds total.

In that time, Bloglines grabbed the text from our RSS feed, which is automatically updated whenever a post is made. The rest is, unfortunately, played out all over the blogs.

But if you think we’re going to try and unring this bell, forget it. The post stays up. Pile on me if you want, George. I made an honest mistake, which I think is understandable given the surrounding circumstances. Won’t be the first time I’ve taken this kind of heat, won’t be the last.

[73] Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 06:34 PM • top

Fr. Gross, your comments are interesting and helpful (#67)

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.

[74] Posted by Karen B. on 06-28-2008 at 06:36 PM • top

“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.”
These were the words (other than our essential beliefs) that I find most encouraging.

I would like to invite you all to Remain Faithful’s first event July 12th.  You can find more details on our website (please also join us) at http://www.remainfaithful.org/  Dr. Michael Howell will be our keynote speaker - following his trip to Jerusalem to participate in GAFCON.

[75] Posted by cbates on 06-28-2008 at 06:38 PM • top

Bishop of Chalcedon,
If GAFCON is obsessed with ‘saving the communion from the inside’ then you’re right.  It will fail.  But that’s not what the statement says.  The statement says, “We’re getting on with the Great Commission, here’s what we believe, here’s how we’ll order our selves…oh and btw, we haven’t left.”

As for continuing churches, that will be something for the CCP to work out.  It is, however, in the grand scheme of things a relatively small part of the puzzle.  An important part, but a small part.

[76] Posted by Fr. Andrew Gross on 06-28-2008 at 06:38 PM • top

I’ll take comments on this matter, and offer more details as to exactly what happened, at contact - at - standfirminfaith - dot - com. I’ll regard subsequent comments on the embargo as off-topic. Otherwise, please return to the topic of the statement.

[77] Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-28-2008 at 06:39 PM • top

I could give a flying #@$@ about all this garbage about who released what when.  I am interested in thoughts about the statement.  What thread ahould we follow since this one has wasted 50 postings on meaninglessness?

[78] Posted by R. Scott Purdy on 06-28-2008 at 06:39 PM • top

Thanks to Greg Griffith and Baby Blue for your reasonable explanations.

THIS is indeed a glorious day!!!

So fitting for the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul
(bet their prayers were added to ours)

[79] Posted by Theodora on 06-28-2008 at 06:43 PM • top

[personal comments on outside blogger/reporter deleted—SH]

Praise God from Whom all Blessing flow.

Refuting the authority of the offending provinces and officials is so powerful.  The suggestion of a province in North America is an answer to my prayers.

God Bless all in Jerusalem and elsewhere who influenced and contributed to this magnificent version of the Magna Carta.

I am just going to sit, say a prayer of thanks, and meditate on this momentous event.

Peace

[80] Posted by Ol' Bob on 06-28-2008 at 06:45 PM • top

BishopOfChalcedon, your comment seems rather conflicted.  GAFCON is worse than useless and means nothing but you are angry that continuing churches aren’t included?  I don’t think most continuing churches are interested in GAFCON or CCP- with the exception of the Anglican Province of America (APA) and possibly the Anglican Church in America (ACA).  The rest value their independence too much to even unite with fellow continuing churches…

[81] Posted by Nevin on 06-28-2008 at 06:49 PM • top

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.

As far as I am concerned, this looks like the money quote.  It is the one that gives me the most hope.  It says (at least to me) that there will be a province for the orthodox in North America that will allow us to remain Anglican and not be in communion with TEC.  Just moving to the Southern Cone as long as it is in communion with TEC doesn’t cut it.  Now it looks like GAFCON is formally severing ties with heterodox entities while still keeping its Anglican identity.  Hallelujah!!!!

[82] Posted by terrafirma on 06-28-2008 at 06:53 PM • top

We recognize the desirability of territorial jurisdiction for provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion, <u>except in those areas where churches and leaders are denying the orthodox faith</u> or are preventing its spread

“Cough” TEC “Cough”  That should raise the blood pressure at 815 a little.  The Episcopal boyars won’t like it that someone is pledging to emancipate the serfs.  Who will tend the fields?  Who will earn the money, and have the children?  Who will serve the champagne at the exclusive dinner parties!?

carl

[83] Posted by carl on 06-28-2008 at 06:54 PM • top

The guests are gone and I thought they would NEVER LEAVE.  I have read the declaration and while it seems quite thrilling to me, I am going to leave it to my priests to do what they do so well and that is teach.  I’m looking forward to hearing their take on this document and where they feel it is going to lead us as a communion.  I hope they do it soon.  In the meantime, I will be digesting everyone’s opinions.  God bless these men and women for their work.

[84] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 06-28-2008 at 07:04 PM • top

The implications of this communique will spread among us for years.  Does this mean that a viable alternative to TEC is now in place?  How can this be when the existing lines to Canterbury remain intact?

[85] Posted by Ron in Houston on 06-28-2008 at 07:04 PM • top

BishopOfChalcedon, your comment seems rather conflicted.

No, I think the first half was quoting someone else.

Personally, I am more optomistic about the Declaration on the count of “separation from the ‘Anglican Communion’” as such.

The Declaration clearly states that signatories are out of communion with apostate jursidictions and no longer recognize their authority.

Yes, there are ambiguities which need to be addressed, as the “meaning” of the Declaration is more thoroughly explained and applied:
* Does membership in the ‘Anglican Communion’ constitute being in communion with its members?
* Are signatories, who reject being in communion with PEcUSA and the AciC, therefore also to reject being in communion with those (e.g. the CoE) who are still in communion with the apostates and heretics, or is it okay to be in communion with those who still accept PEcUSA?
* Are members, still in good standing, of the PEcUSA HOB (+Iker, +Duncan, etc) “out of communion” with GAFCON until they are able to rectify that situation.

Nevertheless, I think the Declaration is—or could be—a first step toward a clear and definitive answer to those questions. I think people need to see what the “follow through” is before they conclude that it refuses to make an adequate separation from apostates, heretics, and their enablers. Sure, perhaps it won’t make an adequate break… but perhaps it will. It has taken the first step by explicitly renouncing the validity and authority of apostate bodies.

.

As for B. o’ C.‘s estimation of the relation between GAFCON and the continuers, I think he’s exactly right—the Declaration is setting up a normative “angloprotestantism” which cannot be reconciled with “theological anglocatholicism”, nor has any interest in doing so. If you compare the points of difference between the Declaration of Jerusalem and the Affirmation of St. Louis you’ll see them plainly… I note a few of them in my early comments on this thread.

.

The rest value their independence too much to even unite with fellow continuing churches

This is simply untrue. Unfortunately, misrepresentations of the facts and positions of the Continuing movement are regularly allowed to stand here unedited and uncriticized.

For some basic info on the “main” continuing groups, I’ve posted a thumbnail sketch HERE ... this will be of interest to readers in that it helps explain how the APA and the REC (which are affiliated with the Common Cause Partnership and thus GAFCON) fit into the Continuing scheme.

The ACA, a member of the Traditional Anglican Communion, appears to be working on converting to Roman Catholicism, and so won’t be interested in joining the GAFCON movement, even though they did (do?) have a distant affiliation with FACA.

Two of the three remaining “main” Continuing groups—the ACC and the UECNA—are in full sacramental communion (putting paid to your suggestion that Continuing jurisdictions don’t do that), and the APCK looks to be joining them soon. Details (and links to the documentation) of those facts can be found by checking those groups own homepages.

pax,
LP

[86] Posted by LP on 06-28-2008 at 07:07 PM • top

Greg, a question.  Kendall’s site has the Statement with the following language near the beginning:

- Encourage the GAFCON Primates to form a Council.

Is that correct?  Are there any other revisions?  Just wondering.

[87] Posted by hanks on 06-28-2008 at 07:09 PM • top

The issue of the embargo aside…
I don’t like it AT ALL when Anglicans feel they can disregard Councils 5, 6, and 7 of the Church. Why is there such a theological buffet in the Anglican Communion? It seems like the issue of authority is still in question. My path seems to be getting clearer. I appreciate GAFCON helping me see things as they are.

[88] Posted by B. J. Kennedy on 06-28-2008 at 07:10 PM • top

For the Anglo-Catholics out there, don’t panic over the 39 Articles. There is a comment in there that secondaries need to be worked out and I assume that includes liturgical and spiritual practices, WO, and updating the Articles not rewriting them. This is a starting point. Each diocese will be able to decide what is necessary. Anglo-Catholics were not excluded, but protected to practice what they believe in. So the worst case senario is another minor Oxford movement here and there. At least we will have the freedom to do so. I bet Kate’s response will be we are a member of the AC until we (GC) say we aren’t so there isn’t that right Rowan and DBB? To which we respond…in your dreams. YOU ARE OUT!

[89] Posted by Houseownedbythedog3 on 06-28-2008 at 07:16 PM • top

Hanks - Please note Greg’s remarks at the very beginning of the post noting the change of the word recognize to encourage.

[90] Posted by JackieB on 06-28-2008 at 07:16 PM • top

I surely don’t see how allowing those of us so anxious to read the document will ruin this glorious conference.  Perhaps it will allow them to concentrate less of this product and more on plans for maintaining the momentum!

[91] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 06-28-2008 at 07:17 PM • top

Question!! From a communicant that recently left TEC for CANA, became confused and returned to TEC and am now wandering in the dark. What does all this mean to me?? All the rhetoric about who is on 1st is thoroughly confusing the issue? Please, what does the statement mean as far as TEC? Is TEC back to before 2003??

[92] Posted by NewAnglican on 06-28-2008 at 07:18 PM • top

LP, I am aware of the history of the continuing churches and can agree with your assessment that ACC, APA, ACA, APCK and UECNA are the “major” or “genuine” continuing churches.  I am aware that over the last few years some of these have made noises about reuniting with others (as some have done in years past before re-splitting shortly thereafter).  However, given the history of these churches, until something concrete happens to genuinely reunite these churches I will continue to be accurate in stating these bishops and churches value their independence.  As for the ACA it is intriguing that they have made been making overtures to Rome while at the same time joining FACA and now FACA is officially a full partner in CCP.

[93] Posted by Nevin on 06-28-2008 at 07:34 PM • top

I think, for what that’s worth, it is a needed step forward.  Granted, I’m a bit baffled about what happened to the last three Ecumenical Councils and I’m not big on some aspects of the Thirty Nine Articles ... but overall, it’s an important and good step in the right direction.  As the Rev. Packer suggests, I will watch and pray.

[94] Posted by monologistos on 06-28-2008 at 07:35 PM • top

Praise the Lord!

[95] Posted by ElaineF. on 06-28-2008 at 07:46 PM • top

FWIW [92], my reading is that TEC is out of communion with at least 291 bishops representing most, by number, of the world’s Anglicans. They are calling TEC to repent and return to the Lord, and will vigorously work together to support all in North America who desire alternate primatial oversite if that repentance doesn’t follow quickly.

[96] Posted by Dr. N. on 06-28-2008 at 07:47 PM • top

My question is:

Are we going to see more moves to inhibit the priests/bishops that attended GAFCon from the US who haven’t left TEC?  Will KJS and co. declare that this document amounts to ‘abandoning the communion” and take action against the participants, as she has done in the past? And will that lead to (finally) some action against HER by the ABC or her fellow bishops who, judging from some comments posted earlier, are also calling her actions into question?

Only time will tell, I guess.
Jim Elliott <><

[97] Posted by libraryjim on 06-28-2008 at 07:51 PM • top

For those who are interested in how GAFCON’s Jerusalem Declaration compares to the Continuing Church’s Affirmation of St. Louis, here are some main points:

SIMILARITIES
1. Continuing Anglicanism
Affirmation:

we, being moved by the Holy Spirit to walk only in that way, are determined to continue in the Catholic Faith, Apostolic Order, Orthodox Worship and Evangelical Witness of the traditional Anglican Church, doing all things necessary for the continuance of the same. We are upheld and strengthened in this determination by the knowledge that many provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion have continued steadfast in the same Faith, Order, Worship and Witness…. We affirm our continued relations of communion with the See of Canterbury and all faithful parts of the Anglican Communion.

Declaration:

We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it.

2. Rejection of Apostasy
Affirmation:

We affirm that the ACoC and the PECUSA, by their unlawful attempts to alter Faith, Order and Morality (especially in their General Synod of 1975 and General Convention of 1976), have departed from Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church…
We affirm that all former ecclesiastical governments, being fundamentally impaired by the schismatic acts of lawless Councils, are of no effect among us, and that we must now reorder such godly discipline as we strengthen us in the continuation of our common life and witness…
We affirm that the claim of any such schismatic person or body to act against any Church member, clerical or lay, for his witness to the whole Faith is with no authority of Christ’s true Church, and any such inhibition, deposition or discipline is without effect and is absolutely null and void.

Declaration:

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.

3. Lordship of & Salvation through Christ
Affirmation:

In the firm conviction that “we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,” and that “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved,” and acknowledging our duty to proclaim Christ’s saving Truth to all peoples, nations and tongues, we declare our intention to hold fast the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith of God.

Declaration:

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.

4. Authority of Scripture
Affirmation:

We repudiate all deviation of departure from the Faith, in whole or in part, and bear witness to these essential principles of evangelical Truth and apostolic Order: (1) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and the authentic record of God’s revelation of Himself, His saving activity, and moral demands—a revelation valid for all men and all time.

Declaration:

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.

5. The Three Creeds
Affirmation:

...(2) The Nicene Creed as the authoritative summary of the chief articles of the Christian Faith, together with the “Apostles’ Creed, and that known as the Creed of St. Athanasius to be “thoroughly received and believed” in the sense they have had always in the catholic Church.

Declaration:

We uphold… the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

6. Marriage
Affirmation:

The God-given sacramental bond in marriage between one man and one woman is God’s loving provision for procreation and family life, and sexual activity is to be practiced only within the bonds of Holy Matrimony.

Declaration:

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.

7. Ecumenicism—though Affirmation is clearer in what the essentials are, they both state that ecumenical relations are based on such standards:
Affirmation:

The continuing Anglicans remain in full communion with the See of Canterbury and with all other faithful parts of the Anglican Communion, and should actively seek similar relations with all other apostolic and catholic Churches, provided that agreement in the essentials of Faith and Order first be reached.

(N.B. Once the CoE started ordaining women, it no longer met, from the Continuing perspective, the requirement of agreement on “essentials of Faith and Order”.)
Declaration:

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.

.

DIFFERENCES
1. Ecumenical Councils—Affirmation accepts all seven; the Declaration only 4.
Affirmation:

...(3) The received Tradition of the Church and its teachings as set forth by “the ancient catholic bishops and doctors,” and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, to the exclusion of all errors, ancient and modern.

Declaration:

We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils… as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

2. Thirty-nine Articles—for the Affirmation, these are less authoritative than the Creeds, Councils and the patristic consensus; for the Declaration, they come second only to Scripture:
Affirmation:

In affirming these principles [Scripture, Creeds, Councils etc] we recognize that all Anglican statements of faith and liturgical formulae must be interpreted in accordance with them.

Declaration:

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.

3. Historic and traditional norms of Scriptural interpretation are “required” by the Affirmation, merely to be “respected” by the Declaration.
Affirmation:

We acknowledge that rule of faith laid down by St. Vincent of Lerins: “Let us hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all, for that is truly and properly Catholic.”

Declaration:

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.

4. Liturgical Norms
Affirmation:

In the continuing Anglican Church, the Book of Common Prayer is (and remains) one work in two editions: The Canadian Book of 1962 and the American Book of 1928. Each is fully and equally authoritative. No other standard for worship exists.

Declaration:

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.

5. Ordination—Affirmation explicitly defines the clergy with apostolic succession and the Eucharist, rejects lay presidency, and requires a male-only clergy; Declaration only speaks of “historic succession” (could mean the same thing of course) and doesn’t forbid W.O. or lay presidency:
Affirmation:

The Holy Orders of bishops, priests and deacons as the perpetuation of Christ’s gift of apostolic ministry to His Church, asserting the necessity of a bishop of apostolic succession (or priest ordained by such) as the celebrant of the Eucharist—these Orders consisting exclusively of men in accordance with Christ’s Will and institution (as evidenced by the Scriptures), and the universal practice of the catholic Church.

Declaration:

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.

.

There are other points of comparison and contrast—especially if you look through not just the Declaration but the whole statement. There are also a number of things the Affirmation addresses that the Declaration does, since the Affirmation also addressed the initial “institutional” questions of constituting a new body.

Still, I think those hit the main points.

So while there are a number of significant differences between the two—which (particularly given the interpretation and requirements that many GAFCONers are likely to insist upon) mean that there are fundamental differences about basic “Faith and Order” between them—there are also more than a few points of similarity.

Which, perhaps, shouldn’t be surprising—for the Continuers were reacting against precisely that same apostasy in 1977 to which the GAFCONers are reacting today.

.

I hope those quotes and comparison are of some help to those many posters and readers who have been trying to figure out if and how GAFCON and the “Continuum” compare with each other.

.

pax,
LP

[98] Posted by LP on 06-28-2008 at 07:55 PM • top

She said.. he said… they said… we said… Greg said….  Please, let us reflect upon the magnitude of the message that has come from this great gathering that we all have been waiting for with abated breath.  Praise God for his glorious works among those who sought to bring our communion closer to Him!

Praise Him and Glorify Him for this message that we have received from the pilgrims to Jerusalem!

May God bless us all!

BBD

[99] Posted by bigBdaddy on 06-28-2008 at 07:58 PM • top

KJS has committed numerous “sins” against our own TEC canons.  She is the one that should be deposed- and abandonement of communion and her vows should be at the top of the list of charges.  Not to mention possible breach of fiduciary duty on spending money on lawsuits that may have been designated for mission work.  The sad part is 815 has control of $ 581 Million that was given by faithful Episcopalians for many years- and now they spend it to support gay rights and heretical stances of their “New Age Religion”.  So very sad.

[100] Posted by cbates on 06-28-2008 at 07:59 PM • top

LP, Thanks very much for your #98 with the comparison to St. Louis.  Interesting reading.  Much appreciate your doing the compare & contrast.

—elfgirl

[101] Posted by The_Elves on 06-28-2008 at 08:12 PM • top

LP, Thanks very much for your #98 with the comparison to St. Louis.

You’re very welcome. Since the issue had come up several times from a number of posters, I figured it would both be pertinent and save some folks some time.

And I must say, while I definitely think that the Affirmation is a better statement of basic doctrine, the Declaration definitely has the better name. I mean, wow—JERUSALEM! How cool is that?!

grin
LP

[102] Posted by LP on 06-28-2008 at 08:17 PM • top

Nevin, just saw your comment, #93 . . .

Please keep the thread on topic—not on Continuing [or other] churches.

Thanks.

[103] Posted by Sarah on 06-28-2008 at 08:30 PM • top

Much of this—most of it in fact—is fine. The main point is that they are still in, and in a sense, that is all that matters.

However, I make a case that the document is heretical in a material sense; as long as they are still in, denying the authority of TEC contradicts recognition of them as a church. If they do not recognize TEC as a church, they should not still be in the Anglican Communion.

More importantly, the way (8) is worded, TEC and the ACC are compliant. Gay marriage is not the issue.

[104] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 06-28-2008 at 08:31 PM • top

Hi AS . . . Why do you say this: “If they do not recognize TEC as a church, they should not still be in the Anglican Communion.”

On what basis do you make that statement?

Curiously,

Sarah

[105] Posted by Sarah on 06-28-2008 at 08:32 PM • top

To follow up with my question . . . I consider the “Anglican Communion” as a whole to be—regrettably—merely an interesting organization made up of *some* churches and some not-churches.

Sor of like the USA is made up of a variety of groups, including churches, Rotary clubs, states, citizens, and on and on . . .

[106] Posted by Sarah on 06-28-2008 at 08:34 PM • top

AFter reading all this, I will wait till it is formally adopted.

[107] Posted by Going Home on 06-28-2008 at 08:36 PM • top

Here is why:
(1)They are committed to recognizing catholicity as an essential mark of the church, as they proclaim allegiance to the Creeds via the Articles, BCP, Ordinal and Scripture.
(2)Authority is essential to the catholic church—no church can be church without authority.

You should be fine with (1) and (2). Here is a kicker:
(3)It is OK to deny the authority of TEC only if TEC has no authority, and if they indeed have no authority they are not a church.

GAFCON denies TEC’s authority. That is OK only if they also hold TEC is not a church—thatit is not Christian.

Here is the other kicker:
(4)Membership in the AC commits its members to recognize each other as Christian churches.
that’s how the foundational documents go, it’s implicit in the institution—and it’s implied by the covenant.

[108] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 06-28-2008 at 08:38 PM • top

Yes—the AC could become a mixed body of churches and non-churches, but that is not how it is now, by its own self-understanding. Nothing in the Communique explicitly says TEC is no longer a church and no longer Christian.

[109] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 06-28-2008 at 08:40 PM • top

RE: “thatit is not Christian. . . . “

Nonsense—it’s perfectly “Christian” to recognize when an organization is not a church.

RE: “(4)Membership in the AC commits its members to recognize each other as Christian churches.
that’s how the foundational documents go, it’s implicit in the institution—and it’s implied by the covenant. . . .”

Nope.  The AC certainly *hopes* for that and *wishes* for that . . . but as has been recognized over the past four years . . . all the provinces are “autonomous” and can do as they like in the organization that is the AC.

Various provinces do not recognize TEC’s orders—as TEC has purported to defrock now hundreds of clergy . . . and TEC itself does not recognize various orders from other provinces, since it does not grant status of clergy of other provinces.

It’s gonna be an interesting next decade or so . . .

[110] Posted by Sarah on 06-28-2008 at 08:42 PM • top

You could point out entities that are part of teh AC, but are not churches. Granted—and that might open the door to the mixed scene you mention in the future.

I’d still maintain TEC’s membership—as it stands now—is not that kind of membership, but rather one predicated on their being a Christian church.

Thus: logical consistency would require GAFCON to respect TEC’s authority until such time as they are no longer a member church of the AC. But GAFCON did not do that.

[111] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 06-28-2008 at 08:44 PM • top

RE: “Nothing in the Communique explicitly says TEC is no longer a church and no longer Christian.”

Well then all is well.  ; > )

[112] Posted by Sarah on 06-28-2008 at 08:45 PM • top

You seem to think that for Nigeria not to be in communion with TEC implies Nigeria holds TEC is not a Christian church.

Where does Nigeria say that?

[113] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 06-28-2008 at 08:47 PM • top

The Doomsday Clock at 815 has just moved a lot closer to midnight.

All is well!

[114] Posted by hanks on 06-28-2008 at 08:48 PM • top

Yes—all shall be well.
After all, they are still in.

[115] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 06-28-2008 at 08:48 PM • top

RE: “Thus: logical consistency would require GAFCON to respect TEC’s authority until such time as they are no longer a member church of the AC.”

No AS . . . logical consistency requires no such thing . . .

It appears—at first glance—that Gafcon will have a sub-organization within the AC which will not have any part of TEC as a national body.  I’m sure they’ll be happy to accept TEC into their sub-organization should TEC choose to adhere to their sub-organization’s covenant.

Rowan Williams will not discipline the AC . . . and so now the member churches of the AC will need to establish their own boundaried sub-organization of the AC. 

It’s a good idea . . .

[116] Posted by Sarah on 06-28-2008 at 08:48 PM • top

Will you never quit nitpicking? That, and trying to forsee and anxiously control the future seem to be reoccurring themes in almost all comments. Come on folks, knock it off! As believers in Christ we are called to rely on his loving providence ... which reduces anxiety. To try to control the future with endless nitpicking is to attempt to control God, and that is evil (although some will argue the point).
FatherBob

[117] Posted by FatherBob on 06-28-2008 at 08:49 PM • top

During the discussion prior to the departure vote at the San Joaquin Convention in December, a few people kept trying to delay by continually nitpicking and trying to derail the discussion. Finally, the Chancellor spoke: “This reminds me of a person trapped in a burning house who won’t be rescued until he checks the rescuers credentials.” The resulting standing ovation ended that conversation! [personal comment addressed to other blogger/reporter edited—SH]
DesertPadre

[118] Posted by desertpadre on 06-28-2008 at 08:49 PM • top

RE: “You seem to think that for Nigeria not to be in communion with TEC implies Nigeria holds TEC is not a Christian church.”

Not certain where you get that idea.

[119] Posted by Sarah on 06-28-2008 at 08:50 PM • top

However, I make a case that the document is heretical in a material sense; as long as they are still in, denying the authority of TEC contradicts recognition of them as a church. If they do not recognize TEC as a church, they should not still be in the Anglican Communion.

A.S.—I get and even agree with where you’re coming from, but what you say doesn’t have to follow… GAFCON isn’t necessarily being dishonest or inconsistent about it. Here’s the key:

Functionally, the Anglican Communion is not a communion. That is to say, adherence to basic Christianity is not required of its members; some member jurisdictions are not in communion with each other; jurisdictions do not recognize each other’s clergy. (Some jurisdictions do not recognize VGR or those who consecrated him; PEcUSA has rejected the orders of all those other-Anglican-jurisdiction clergy whom they’ve deposed under Title IV).

The inconsistency you note is valid ONLY if GAFCON members believe the “Anglican Communion” is a commuion... i.e. only if they believe all members are necessarily in communion with each other.

But this may not be the case.

The problem is, the Jerusalem Declaration, as it stands, does not address this question. And, as merely a statement of principle, that’s okay. But what is still lacking is authoritative statements to the effect that:
* They view the “Anglican Communion” as merely a fellowship, membership in which does not establish (unlike membership in PEcUSA’s HOB, which canonically does) communion.
* All those who remain in PEcUSA, in the AcoC, or remain in jurisdictions which are in communion with those apostate bodies are not in communion with the Declaration signatories.
* All those still formally in PEcUSA (which, by canonical definition, includes being a member of its HOB) or another apostate jurisdiction cannot be an official part of the “GAFCON communion” until they have left that apostate body.

Naturally, this will take a few months, perhaps a year, to get straightened out if that is their intent—+Iker and +Duncan and anyone else who wants to be part of GAFCON have to get out of PEcUSA; a formal announcement that the GAFCONers do not believe that the “Anglican Communion” is anything more (at the moment) than a fellowship has to be made; notice and a deadline has to be given to all jurisdictions not formally out of communion with PEcUSA or the AcoC that they must do so or, if they refuse, be declared out of communion with the GAFCON provinces.

I think the Jerusalem Declaration sets the stage for this, by renouncing recognition of or the validity of apostate jurisdictions. And if the GAFCONers intend to preserve a traditional and sacramental Anglican definition of “communion” and “in communion”, then they absolutely have to do the above. It logically and inevitably follows from their statements and that sacramental theology.
.

If they don’t do this, then, sure, you’re quite right—either they’ve abandoned that sacramental understanding of “communion” or they’re not actually owning up to the implications of their own statement.

But still—give them a little while to clarify things and act on them. Heck, the Declaration isn’t even “officially” released yet. Granted, these are confusions which possibly should have been addressed far more clearly long ago… but now, with the Declaration in hand, comes a chance to finally make a clean break from the apostasy, even while retaining “fellowship” in the so-called “Anglican Communion”.

Ease up… and give ‘em all a chance to put it into practice!

grin

LP

[120] Posted by LP on 06-28-2008 at 08:50 PM • top

Anglican Scotist #104
More importantly, the way (8) is worded, TEC and the ACC are compliant. Gay marriage is not the issue.

Not yet. With same sex marriage legal throughout Canada and in two U.S. states it is only a matter of time. Next year’s General Convention will ratify conducting them in states where they are legal and recognizing them throughout the Church. I’ve no doubt some Canadian congregations already do recognize same sex civil marriages, and many will begin conducting them soon with, or without, permission. The UK, Ireland, and Europe almost certainly will if the EU treaty is forced through, they won’t have much choice. In any event, #8 covers any behaviour outside the stated norm, including the blessing of civil unions and more informal pairings. TEC and ACC are out of compliance on those.

Jeffrey A. Roberts

[121] Posted by Jeff in Ohio on 06-28-2008 at 08:59 PM • top

I think a quote from Monty Python’s Holy Grail is apropos here:
“Let’s not argue about who killed who; this is supposed to be a happy occasion!”

[122] Posted by AngliCanDo on 06-28-2008 at 09:06 PM • top

cbates [100] You are 100% correct.
God Bless all in this new Christ centered beginning.

[123] Posted by Tom Dennis on 06-28-2008 at 09:15 PM • top

Can we uphold the 39 Articles and still include Charismatics and Anglocatholics in Communion?

[124] Posted by John316 on 06-28-2008 at 09:16 PM • top

Hahahahaha, MP….
Sounds like, from the Jerusalem declaration, that we will be getting along just fine….
and, thanks for your good wishes!

[125] Posted by HeartAfire on 06-28-2008 at 09:16 PM • top

Sarah Hey wrote [110]:

RE: “thatit is not Christian. . . . “
Nonsense—it’s perfectly “Christian” to recognize when an organization is not a church.

Sarah, have you perhaps mistaken Anglican Scotist’s meaning? I believe a space has been omitted between the words “that” and “it”, so that the comment which reads: GAFCON denies TEC’s authority. That is OK only if they also hold TEC is not a church—thatit is not Christian. means “it’s only OK to deny TEC’s authority if they [GAFCon] also hold that TEC is not a church” and not “It’s unChristian to deny that TEC is Christian” as you seem to have understood it.

Have I got that right, Scotist?

[126] Posted by kyounge1956 on 06-28-2008 at 09:17 PM • top

Anglican Scotist wrote:

More importantly, the way (8) is worded, TEC and the ACC are compliant. Gay marriage is not the issue.

Please explain further. Paragraph 8 says Christian marriage is between one man and one women and that unmarried persons should abstain from sex. Surely TEC, with a thrice-married bishop in one diocese, and a non-celibate gay bishop in another, and openly celebrated SSB’s in others, is in violation of this.

[127] Posted by kyounge1956 on 06-28-2008 at 09:25 PM • top

For the last three councils, I am still reading that one out. The fifth I haven’t gotten to, but the sixth among other things declared that the clergy could not marry. The seventh is about iconclaism. I am still reading to see exactly what is in the councils beside the heresy refuting.I have a feeling there were other things in the councils besides the obvious that got them left off.

[128] Posted by Houseownedbythedog3 on 06-28-2008 at 09:28 PM • top

[comment deleted for personal comment about another blogger/reporter]

[129] Posted by Long Gone Anglo Catholic on 06-28-2008 at 09:29 PM • top

Can we give it a rest about George and Greg? and stick to the topic, please.

[130] Posted by Houseownedbythedog3 on 06-28-2008 at 09:32 PM • top

I agree with Dr N. Here we have what may turn out to be one of the most important Christian documents of the new century and within only a few posts the comments degenerate into a spat.

Is there anyway to separate out the posts re: whether the embargo was violated and what should have been done about the mistake etc into a separate thread where those interested in the topic can duke it out without spoiking our moment over here????

I have to wonder what some non-Christian would think is they happened to come across this thread. Can’t we leave battle for another time? Turn the other cheek? Kiss and make up? Forgive, forget and let it drop already??

[131] Posted by StayinAnglican on 06-28-2008 at 09:43 PM • top

Hi Friends,

I just read the entire document out loud and I recommend it as a way of reading it.  It’s a masterpiece of language - it’s the type of document that’s meant to be read aloud.  How rare that is - most of our documents are meant to be read, quietly, perhaps with a glass of chardonnay and some thin mints.  But not this statement - it seems to me it’s meant to be read aloud, a true statement and declaration, and I encourage you all read it out loud, to experience the whole thing as a oratorical masterpiece.

bb

[132] Posted by BabyBlue on 06-28-2008 at 09:44 PM • top

OH, PLEASE!  I wanted to read all the comments for different perspectives but I felt I was in a chicken squabble over who released what when. I burned out after 44 comments and will look for something more concise elsewhere. Thanks,SF, for putting it up. Yours is the first one I found!  Blessings.

[133] Posted by Lejos on 06-28-2008 at 09:52 PM • top

Nevin and LP,
Greetings!  To answer your question about GAFCON…I deeply hope that the conference does succeed.  May Christ’s blessings be upon them.  But I certain hope they do stick to the point of being AngloCatholic, not the other way around.
Yes I would hope and be honoured to be part of GAFCON in any way.  But it is our hope to unite in communion with the conservative Anglican Communion as GAFCON.
And yes we have been working in communion with alot of the Continuing Churches.  We will continue to do so.
But its sad when you work so hard for God, that even the others over look you.  Not as in attention, but as a group that is eager to help. 
+Stonewall

[134] Posted by BishopOfSaintJames on 06-28-2008 at 09:52 PM • top

Houseownedbythedog [129] wrote:

For the last three councils, I am still reading that one out. The fifth I haven’t gotten to, but the sixth among other things declared that the clergy could not marry. The seventh is about iconclaism. I am still reading to see exactly what is in the councils beside the heresy refuting.I have a feeling there were other things in the councils besides the obvious that got them left off.

I looked up the Ecumenical Councils in the Catholic Encyclopedia a while ago. There is a separate article for the 2nd Council of Nicea (the 7th Ecumenical Council) and it appears to me that Canon 7 of 2nd Nicea could present practical difficulties in the modern world: it requires that relics are to be placed in all churches and that no church is to be consecrated without relics.

Unfortunately there aren’t separate articles for Councils 5 and 6.

[135] Posted by kyounge1956 on 06-28-2008 at 09:55 PM • top

surely there is a means where a moderator can simply edit out the dissenting comments so we can all just focus on the issue of the statement?

[136] Posted by cbates on 06-28-2008 at 09:56 PM • top

Re: The 39 articles

Maybe it just my wacky way of interpreting things or maybe its because I belong to odd sort of Stratospherically High Anglo-Catholic parish ( wouldn’t surprise me at all if it was the latter wink) but I have read the 39 articles and I don’t find much in them that I would disagree with given the instruction that I have received from my parish. Apart from what I consider to be an archaic reference to the “Popish” and perhaps an equally archaic reaction against the excesses of the Roman church at the time, I don’t think there is anything particularly anti-AC about them.

Now I have long acknowledged that there are perhaps two definitions of Anglo-Catholic. Depending on who you speak with it could either mean “All but gone completely over to Rome” or the way I understand it to mean which is being as “Roman” or as “Eastern” as a church firmly committed and proud of its Reformation heritage as it could be without any of the excesses that sparked the Reformation in the first place.

I don’t know about other AC parishes but at my parish the Reformation is a good thing albiet a good thing with its own excesses that need to be rejected as much as Rome’s and Constantinople’s excesses need to be. This to me is what makes us thoroughly Anglican and far too Reformed to be accused of being “Popish” even if we might never be Reformed enough for some people. We don’t want to belong anywhere else than with other Anglicans. Its the Anglican Communion that God has given us to love and we mean to stay where God has planted us.

So to make a long story short, I, as a devout if sometimes muddled Anglo-Catholic, am not in the least bit alarmed about The Articles. It seems to me that if the Reformation was a good thing then so are the Articles. We just might have to talk about excesses at some point which is I’m sure not going to be a popular topic for some. But hash it out we will have to do unless this really is a communion that wants us out. I have a good feeling that that last is not the case. Hope I am right about that.

What do the other AC’s here think? Are you worried about the focus on the Articles or not? Let’s hear from you if you haven’t piped up already.

[137] Posted by StayinAnglican on 06-28-2008 at 10:07 PM • top

#72, a good answer to your good question is at MCJ’s blog, in the 4th comment to the post ‘Non-Schism Schism’.  Begin at the 2nd sentence, 2nd paragraph and go through the 3rd paragraph.

#86 (pursuant to #81), Your statement about the ACA may not be quite accurate.  In any event, the interesting question to ask would be, who among Anglicans (of all stripes) in fact *remains in communion* with whom?

#102, I second the Elves #101 in appreciation of your clear, detailed comparison of the Affirmation of St. L. and the new GAFCON Declaration. Possibly the resemblance of the statements is not coincidental?

Now I feel like a waitress in a take-a-number fast food joint….

[138] Posted by TACit on 06-28-2008 at 10:18 PM • top

Can we uphold the 39 Articles and still include Charismatics and Anglocatholics in Communion?

On anglocatholics (if you mean theological anglocatholics as opposed to those who simply like high-church liturgy), see the comparison above between the Affirmation and the Declaration on the 39 Articles.

For anglocatholics, the 39 Articles (which were never “normative” or “confessional” for any jurisdiction except the CoE) have both historical value and theological merit, but that merit is subject to the correction and interpretation of Scripture, the Creeds, the seven Ecumenical Councils, and the consensus of patristic tradition. The Declaration, by contrast, appears to make the “39 Articles” second in authority only to Scripture (though it does not give, other than that, guidelines on their interpretation).

Remember, too, that Anglicanism existed before the 39 Articles. After Henry’s excommunication (1533) we have formulations of “Anglican” thought in the The _Ten Articles_, the _Bishop’s Book_, the _Six Articles_ and the _King’s Book_ which predate them and are far more “catholic”, as well as the proposed _42 Articles_ (more “protestant”) before we got to the finalization of the _39 Articles_ in 1571—nearly 40 years after Anglicanism’s break from Rome, and well into the “second generation” of Anglicanism which had come under the influence of radical Calvinist refugees from the Continent.

Likewise, the 1662 BCP—which the Declaration makes normative—is a “protestant” choice from the Prayerbook tradition (if going for “early”, why not 1549 for example, from the first generation of Anglicanism?) and ignores the “corrective” influences of the Scottish Anglican right and BCP which was formative on the very first American BCP.

.

In short, for better or worse, by elevating the status of the 39 Articles, mandating them as an authoritative theological norm, and choosing the 1662 BCP as liturgical norm, GAFCON and the Declaration have put themselves firmly into the “protestant” side of Anglicanism.

Neither the 39 Articles nor the 1662 BCP have ever represented “all” of Anglicanism (Anglicanism predates them both); nor have they been normative for all jurisdictions of Anglicanism—and making them so represents GAFCON’s conscious selection of the non-catholic “wing” of a denomination which has always tried to include both protestant and catholic wings.

.

This isn’t to say that they’re wrong to do so. I’ve held for as long as I’ve been informed about Anglicanism that the “shotgun marriage” between protestant and catholic Christianity within Anglicanism is, ultimately, impossible if one is to have doctrinal and sacramental clarity.

And so I think it is a good thing that GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration are coming out clearly on “one side” of that divide and making it mandatory for their members.

But everyone should recognize that that is precisely what is going on—that it is one “side”—and that even if friendly toward (or, at very least, grudgingly tolerant of) some degree of “anglocatholicism” in its membership, the emerging definition and character of the movement is clearly and intentionally Protestant, and will, in all likelihood, include norms of both faith and order (in what is accepted and what is prohibited) that “theological anglocatholics” (as measured, for example, by the Affirmation of St. Louis) will not be able, without abandoning anglocatholicism, to accept.

.

So, no, I don’t think “anglocatholics” will find a home in GAFCON… but then, as I said, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The doctrinal and ecclesiastical clarity the movement is providing is a very salutory thing, even if it means that the “tent” it is pitching isn’t big enough to include all traditional “Anglicans” within it.

So even while I, myself, am an “Affirmation” Anglican rather than a “Declaration” Anglican, I think the Declaration is to be praised for moving toward that kind of necessary clarity. In the long run, better the clarity of being one thing or the other than attempting the continued, unsustainable incoherence of trying to be both.

.

pax,
LP

[139] Posted by LP on 06-28-2008 at 10:21 PM • top

As an Anglo Catholic, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion don’t bother me a bit.  They are quite appropriate.

[140] Posted by Cennydd on 06-28-2008 at 11:04 PM • top

I have a feeling there were other things in the councils besides the obvious that got them left off.

This is a good point—and one that permits an answer to some other questions raised by several posters above about the 39 Articles, anglocatholicism, etc.

.

Traditionally, “Reformed” or “Protestant” Anglicanism has wanted to reject the later Ecumenical councils because they defend and establish “catholic practices” which the Protestants wanted to remove. This isn’t to say that some of those practices were not abused by late medieval Roman Catholicism—they were!—but the Protestant response (from the catholic perspective at least) was throwing out the “baby” of the orthodox and patristic practices and beliefs along with the “bathwater” of the abuses. Throwing out that “baby” is tougher if you accept the authority of all the Ecumenical Councils and the norms of patristic teaching and practice. According to “catholics” anyway.

.

Iconoclasm is a good—and chief—example. Evidence from some of the earliest generations of the Church (both literary and archaeological) shows a constant and wide-spread belief in the appropriateness of asking the saints for their intercession, of the use of relics, and of the “veneration” (not worship = adoration, which is given only to God) of icons.

In the 8th century Eastern Roman Empire, a movement - known as “iconoclasm” - arose which wanted to do away with this long-standing tradition. This was the source of both political and theological debate, rioting and destruction. It was ultimately addressed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which re-affirmed the traditional practice of the use of such icons. It ruled quite clearly that they were to be venerated, not worshiped—but also clear that such veneration was both ancient and appropriate.

The rulings of the council—chiefly an Eastern concern and with Eastern bishops—was accepted in the West both by the popes and by the secular authorities. And accepted not as introducing a novelty, but as defending a practice from the apostolic age itself!

.

Come the Protestant Reformation, the use of such icons (images, statues, etc) had become a point of contention again—perhaps in large part because of the ignorant late medieval error of actually worshiping the images. And so the (from the Ecumenical Council’s perspective) heresy of iconoclasm returned. And you’ll find the Anglican expression of this iconoclasm in Article XXII—“The Romish doctrine concerning… worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saint, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God.”

From the “catholic” perspective, this article, while correct—and consistent with the Seventh Ecumenical Council—in condemning the adoration of images and relics, is in error—or, rather, the interpretation of the article is in error—if understood to say that the veneration of them is “repugnant to the word of God.” In error, too, by condeming the intercession of saints (though not, fo course, in condeming the error of praying to saints as if they were God or as if they, rather than God, saved us.)

Nevertheless, this “error” (according to the “catholics”) is precisely what many angloprotestants believe… and how they interpret Article XXII.

A hermenutic—like the Affirmation of St. Louis—which makes the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church more authoritative than the 39 Articles thus requires that XXII be read consistently with patristic & Ecumenical teaching and practice—i.e. that veneration of icons and relics (which you will see every day in an Orthodox church) is appropriate. By contrast, one which rejects the later Ecumenical Councils and allows the 39 Articles to be interpreted “independently” of Tradition, will assert the Protestant belief that such veneration is “popish”, corrupt, idolatrous, and “repugnant to the Word of God.”

There you see a clear example of the practical differences between the “authorities” recognized and re-established by the Affirmation and those recognized by the Declaration.

.

Personally, I am very troubled by the rejection of the last three Ecumenical Councils. Sure, things they say may be difficult, personally challenging, or theologically confusing—particularly since they speak from a very different time and culture.

Nevertheless, to reject the Ecumenical Councils which were established as authoritative by the undivided Church over 1000 years ago—and accepted as normative by nearly all of Christendom in both East and West until rejected by Protestant innovations in the 16th century—I think is very dangerous, for it in effect says that “we moderns” know the mind of the Church, the understanding of Scripture and the will of God better than that enshrined in the teaching and practice of the very first generations of the Church. And we all know full well what kind of trouble—when taken to a greater extreme—that sort of thinking leads to.

.

Now, there’s possibility of middle ground. The anglocatholic can (and does) say “the veneration of icons is a good thing, taught and practiced by the early Church, but it is not something you have to do if you’re uncomfortable with it”. The angloprotestant can say “I think that it is a misguided and potentially dangerous practice, but I recognize that it can be done ‘innocently’ and I won’t object to it.”

The problem is that, when push comes to shove, the angloprotestant (at least the more dyed-in-the-wool one) really does think that the veneration of icons is a corrupt and heretical practice which is “repugnant to the Word of God”, and the anglocatholic really does think that the rejection of the acceptability of that veneration is a heretical and anti-Tradition position which was condemned as heresy by an Ecumenical Council of the undivided Church.

And so once you move (in either direction) toward a more “positive” and “explicit” delineation of theological norms—one which is sufficent to actually establish a coherent position and jurisdiction, rather than something which is intentionally ambiguous to create as “big a tent” as possible by refusing to taking a stand—you come up with a definition (as both the Affirmation and the Declaration do) which excludes one side or the other.

Which, as I said in my last post, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I think, in fact, it is a good and helpful one—state the basics clearly, and let people choose clearly!

But it does mean, as an inevitable result of accomplishing that necessary clarity, that there will be “sides”, and that—while hopefully maintaining charitable regard, fraternal feeling, and all possible mutual support—anglocatholic Anglicans and angloprotestant Anglicans will, each to preserve their own theological integrity, have to be in separate jurisdictions.

.

Okay, a bit long-winded of me I guess. But I hope the particular example both addresses your specific question about councils and helps illuminate the more general discussion touched on by quite a lot of the different posts above.

.

pax,
LP

[141] Posted by LP on 06-28-2008 at 11:05 PM • top

I tend to agree with the more traditional aspect of our faith- but let’s realize that the main issue here before us is NOT the anglocatholic vs. the more protestant side of our Church- but the essential elements that TEC leaders and GC and the Canadian province leaders have vacated- that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who lived and died for us and was resurrected and that the Bible is the revealed word of God that is not open to changes in interpretational depending on social changes.  That is precisely the issue before our Communion- do you stand with the historic faith or do you go with revisionist views.  If you are a lay person and agree with the historic faith- you should join us in Remain Faithful at our website (no cost) at http://www.remainfaithful.org/

We also have a significant event on July 12th- please check that out on our website.

[142] Posted by cbates on 06-28-2008 at 11:20 PM • top

Praise God from whom all blessing flow.

[143] Posted by Baruch on 06-28-2008 at 11:52 PM • top

#87 asks:

Encourage the GAFCON Primates to form a Council.

Is that correct?  Are there any other revisions?  Just wondering.

Yes, that is correct for the third bullet point of the Introduction. It is the only place where correction of the Statement that some have received is required, and it should be corrected online if possible.

[144] Posted by Stephen Noll on 06-29-2008 at 12:05 AM • top

[55] BabyBlue,

One Day Closer is exactly correct. GMT is an abbreviation for Greenwich Mean Time, Greenwich being an Eastern suburb of the City of London and the location of the Greenwich Naval Observatory. One thing to be aware of is that at the present date the UK is on British Summer Time (BST), which, with the possible exception of starting and ending dates, is analogous to our Daylight Saving Time (DST). GMT does not change—it is essentially solar time (i.e., based on local apparent noon at a specifed longitude within its Time Zone). So the local time in New York today is five hours earlier than the local time in London, but it is not five hours earlier than GMT. To understand this recall that when we go on DST, we reset the clocks to be one hour later than standard time. Because BST and DST are an hour later than solar time, the difference in time between New York and GMT is 4 hours, not 5, and BST is actually one hour later than GMT.

Hope that makes it all a bit clearer.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[145] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 06-29-2008 at 12:05 AM • top

ctbates: She is the one that should be deposed- and abandonement of communion and her vows should be at the top of the list of charges. 

  My friend, I think we are unable to depose KJS.  Unless I misunderstand the meaning of:

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.
And:
We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed.

KJS is excommunicated and already deposed.

[146] Posted by tjmcmahon on 06-29-2008 at 12:10 AM • top

Small wonder that Ecclesia Anglicana is in such disarray! The posts are predominantely nitpicking, dealing with the time of posting and other rather insignificant stuff!

At the heart of all our troubles, which the declaration properly addresses, is denial of the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the only rule for Christian folk, and a reliable. apostolic, and properly ordained ministry. As an evangelical Anglo-Catholic, I too am concerned about the failure to include all seven oecumenical councils, and the 1662 Prayer Book (of which I personally am not fond, preferring the old Scottish liturgy, on which the American books were orignally based) as the normative liturgy, but the declaration doesn’t seem to make those judgements inflexible. There is simply not enough problem with the 39 Articles to worry about; they’re basically sound! I can’t believe any clergy will be burnt at the stake for elevation or a Corpus Christi procession.

I am more concerned with acceptance of some branches of the contiuum, the validity of whose orders is often questionable. Aside from the multplicty of bishops, I’ve known too many presbyters who have been “ordained” whose commitment is to a Victorian church, who have become the vicars of English detective novels,  who have entered the ministry because it’s easier than working for a living, whose parishes are essentially social clubs, and who, like Mark Twain’s wife “know the words, but not the music”. If i’ve painted all of them with a broad brush, I apologise ... not all are such; but some have become that because their flock expect that ... so much for their committment to the Gospel and the great commission.

Until we return to the Kingship of the Savior, the Holy Scripures, and a consecrated order of ministry, nothing will change. Nitpicking will only prolong the misery.

Please, please accept the GAFCON declaration as a real start!

[147] Posted by Bobolink2 on 06-29-2008 at 12:31 AM • top

LP,

Man you are really knocking them out of the ballpark today! grin

Re: 142

I would have to agree with you that there would have to be a separate jurisdiction for AC’s. You make a good argument and my thinking is pretty much along those lines if a bit more muddleheaded.

Those who are on the far opposite end from our position have said enough to get me thinking this way. I know that there are those reformed who, however cordial and collegial they might be, do think that we are heretics defying the absolutely clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture and they aren’t afraid to say it either. These will remain nameless around here because I think the answer is obvious enough.

However, while the die-hard reformed may be a majority in some certain locales of the blogosphere, I don’t think they are in the communion at large. I think most Anglicans are pretty much like me, muddling along, having a fairly good idea of what what each different group believes and why they believe it, good enough to form an informed personal belief perhaps but not good enough to hold our own against someone well armed to battle for this or that side.

This is why I haven’t given up on the idea of a peaceful and even familial federation between us and the Reformed/Evangelical wing as long as we receive the kind of protections that our own jurisdicition would provide. That is what I want to see anyway. I don’t see enough difference between us or enough potential friction between the majorities of each group to preclude us from continuing the journey together as the extended family that we are.

[148] Posted by StayinAnglican on 06-29-2008 at 12:34 AM • top

Goodness.  It is always surprising to see how threads have gone when I arise here in the Middle East.

What does this statement do?  (1) It establishes an organization of Anglicans who are in communion with each other.  This ratifies the various statements of loss of communion among churches and provinces.  (2) Its Primates’ Council will move ahead with the formal establishment of a North American province to include those who currently report to various African bishops and those who currently report to various non-TEC bishops.  This province will be recognized as Anglican in communion with the Jerusalem Declaration provinces.  Only selected members of TEC and ACoC will be in communion with the Jerusalem Declaration provinces.

Future issues:  This is an opportunity, perhaps the crucial and final one, for evangelicals and catholics in England to mount an organized resistance to the downward trend in their country.  There are, perhaps, enough of them in terms of active members, clergy, and voluntary financial support to swamp the “official” church and call it back to a strong Christianity.  Let us pray.  On the American side, this is an opportunity to re-integrate a lot of the splinters into one Anglican church again, which is a cause for rejoicing.

We need to pray for the meeting in London on Tuesday.  We need to pray for the English Synod this coming month, that it will not splinter its own church at this crucial time.

[149] Posted by Katherine on 06-29-2008 at 12:48 AM • top

I see my comment above is somewhat ambiguous about bishops.  The new province will unite the recent TEC departees reporting currently to various African/South American jurisdictions AND the earlier departees who are participating in Common Cause, this reuniting many of the splinters.

[150] Posted by Katherine on 06-29-2008 at 12:51 AM • top

PS,

Just a note on 142.

LP, some food for thought for those modern iconoclasts among us who may not know it. You gave the date of the iconoclasm contraversy as 8th century but you did not elaborate on why it erupted in the first place.

I have read in at least one account of the history of the Byzantine era (actually the only account that I have personally read) that the contraversy started under the pressure of Islam from without the empire. Islam was just beginning to be a real problem for the outlying provinces and as the two faiths began to rub against each other, the Christians of those areas began to turn away from venerating icons in pursuit of a more pure Christianity in keeping with both Judaism and Islam.

The mistake, understandable as it might have been, was that the Christians began to believe the Islamic line that it was a reform of the original religion and that Christianity had become corrupt and needed to be returned to its original purity. I would bet that long after the contraversy swept all the way to the center of the empire and was ultimately rejected that those original iconoclasts or else their descendants were all Muslim by then.

[151] Posted by StayinAnglican on 06-29-2008 at 01:02 AM • top

Enough already! Youve talked this matter to death and showed how smart you all are. Now ... let’s go to bed and get a good night’s sleep. In the morning we can promise our Lord that we’ll think of something else to do besides blogging and showing off, if only for one day. God bless us all!
FatherBob

[152] Posted by FatherBob on 06-29-2008 at 01:10 AM • top

I first want to express how grateful I am to the GAFCON folks for the obviously prayerful, hard work they have done in producing the Jerusalem Declaration.  In the midst of everything that is going on, it stands as a means by which we truly can move forward in God’s mission. (BTW, it is 10:10 am CEDT here…)
However after plowing through—er, reading—all the posts, I am concerned about one potential danger I see in this reforming process: it seems that some could consider this period of flux and uncertainty as an opportunity to make the Church in their own image rather than allowing God to shape her (and all of us) in His image in the process of reformation.
Let me explain what I mean.
I am currently on sabbatical in Spain studying the rapid and dramatic growth of secularism and the near vanishing of the Christian faith as an active, visible presence and influence in Spanish society.  And the reality is that Spain is not any different from the majority of Western European countries.  What is happening in Europe is already happening in the United States.  TEC’s worldview and resulting theology is nothing more than postmodern secularism with a veneer of religious terminology lightly coating it to give it some kind of self-declared legitimacy.  The institution of the Episcopal Church is being used to provide a means by which these philosophies are not only promoted, but now (sadly) militantly enforced.
Debates between orthodox Anglicans over churchmanship, Catholic vs. Evangelical theology, and so on are not going to be helpful in the greater battle against secularism and the forces that want to see the Christian faith extinguished.  This series of posts has been refreshingly gracious when this subject has come up. 
The genius behind the Jerusalem Declaration—and, I would hasten to add—the leadership of Bishop Duncan and others—is that it allows plenty of room for orthodox Anglicans to move forward together in a unified witness of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  The last several years have been fraught with internal tensions and stresses—which is typical of any period of change—but we must all swallow our pride, remain gracious and forgiving, and rejoice in the harvest that awaits us.
John A. Macdonald
Camarma de Estruelas, Madrid, Spain
http://www.tesm.edu

[153] Posted by John A. Macdonald on 06-29-2008 at 03:48 AM • top

The right people were called to Jerusalem to get the job done. They got beyond the blogs and MSM and went to the world of Jesus. In so doing they reminded themselves of who formed the Church and the context of struggle it survived. It was a faithful pilgrimage.

The participants in GAFCON were able to build resources, declared a fellowship, and reminded us through their Communiqué that the Church is centered on Jesus and concerned about sin in the world.

Just as 2000 years ago, Jesus’ message was rejected and debated, and many were hurt. Thank God for the early fathers who pulled together the Bible for us. Thank God for the reformers throughout the ages who have brought us back to His Church.

The resources assembled by GAFCON are wonderful. We should pause for a bit and reflect on the presentations as background for the Communiqué. We see the intent - a Church to be in communion with, and supported with the scripture, tradition, and reason. It is an imperfect fellowship, yet the Church joining imperfect worshipers of God.

As I read the media and various blogs, the world goes on - the writers say “Not what you want Lord, but what I want.” Two thousand years the same cry. We crucified Christ and His Church long ago. It is not difficult to see that we will crucify Him again and again, when we place our wants ahead of His.

But in all this, the Church again raised up leaders and called us home. Please be thankful for the work of those who participated in GAFCON and support the fellowship in their efforts to renew the Church.

[154] Posted by Dr. N. on 06-29-2008 at 04:19 AM • top

You can certainly count on my thankfulness and support.  This is wonderful.

[155] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 06-29-2008 at 06:53 AM • top

This will send shock waves through the CofE and Lambeth Palace.  It will probably be some time before we see how this all pans out.

[156] Posted by Pageantmaster ن [Repent Justin Welby] on 06-29-2008 at 07:48 AM • top

Amen, Dr. McDonald.  Thank you for your encouragement.  Luke 7:47 - we, especially the North, have been forgiven much, and given another chance to glorify Him, so let us love and serve Him proportionately and purely.

[157] Posted by Theodora on 06-29-2008 at 07:48 AM • top

Read it aloud, as earlier suggested. Refrain from nit picking or nit pickers. It is the habit of professionals to blather. Avoid them for now. No one but a complete ass could misunderstand the meaning and import of this seminal document. You can bet 815 understands it, and hates it. Kaltenbrunner hated the language of the Nurenburg Indictment. It meant his demise. Same for 815 listening to this document. Anyone hear a fat lady singing? I do.
Pray. Reflect. Experience joy.

[158] Posted by teddy mak on 06-29-2008 at 07:50 AM • top

Hey Pageantmaster . . .

I’m curious about your take—could you expand?

Why the shock waves?

[159] Posted by Sarah on 06-29-2008 at 07:53 AM • top

Where could I find a list of participants in GAFCON?
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

[160] Posted by chusue on 06-29-2008 at 08:05 AM • top

Chusue, I don’t think that the conference released the registration list of the participants.

I’d guess they won’t do that.

[161] Posted by Sarah on 06-29-2008 at 08:12 AM • top

#160 Sarah
This statement sidelines the ABC, according the office and historic see respect, but loss of authority in Communion matters.  Arguably, as far the provinces and other bodies which signed this declaration, he is back to being first among equals, perhaps no more equal than any of the other primates.  The other thing is the GAFCON provinces have taken authority to enter into relations with churches outside of current relationship with the historic see and to initiate a new Anglican province in North America.

So I would imagine there is going to have to some serious thought in the CofE and Lambeth Palace about how and why we got to this position, and whether to continue along the same road that got our Communion affairs here.  I have no idea what the result of that will be.  Much will depend on whether Dr Williams himself responds and I think that this is something that the CofE has to look at collegially.  The Lambeth one-man-band perceived to be doing things without consultation needs some bolstering.  We may see something at General Synod on Friday if the thing isn’t control-freaked out of the way.

An unknown is what the perception in Britain outside the CofE will be, we have not had a good year in public perception.

My initial personal thoughts on the effect in the CofE FWIW.  In some ways I am really sorry it has come to this.

I thought the Declaration itself is good.  Very good.  I imagine that the effectivenes of it in the Communion outside GAFCON provinces will depend on the attitude taken to it by the other Global South provinces.  It will certainly change the landscape at the Lambeth Conference I would have thought.  The elephant is still very much in the room and is going to make a lot of people extremely uncomfortable.

[162] Posted by Pageantmaster ن [Repent Justin Welby] on 06-29-2008 at 08:15 AM • top

Yes, Pageantmaster, your comment could be like a window onto a clearer view.  Would your prediction also account for why UK reporters such as Bates and Gledhill failed so utterly to distinguish themselves in their published coverage of GAFCON - might they have lost their spiritual bearings in the maelstrom?
To get some perspective it could help to remember how the convert Michael Solomon Alexander, former rabbi from Germany, was consecrated at Lambeth Palace in 1841 for the first Protestant bishopric of Jerusalem, where he served several years and started the raising of Christ Church, funded by the London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews (LJS).  GAFCON then seems almost a logical consequence.
(Oh - there’s your response, before I’d finished typing this!)

[163] Posted by TACit on 06-29-2008 at 08:21 AM • top

RE: “This statement sidelines the ABC, according the office and historic see respect, but loss of authority in Communion matters.”

Hmmm.  I’m not certain that a statement—any sort of statement—can “sideline” the ABC.  I don’t think they have that power.

I mean, after all, the ABC can still do *all* that he has claimed that he can do in the past—invite to Lambeth, call meetings, etc, etc.

I appreciate your CEO perspective, however . . .

[164] Posted by Sarah on 06-29-2008 at 08:31 AM • top

Heh. Er . . . “COE” . . . ; > )

[165] Posted by Sarah on 06-29-2008 at 08:31 AM • top

#165 Thank you Sarah - just my initial thoughts - I think we are in pretty much uncharted waters.

We are losing the relationships between Communion Institutions.  The ABC sidelined the Primates’ Meeting as an instrument.  Some of the Primates have sidelined the ABC.

Prayers at this time when the Communion faces really difficult problems which we are powerless to solve ourselves.  Pray that God will save us from ourselves and make and reshape us in our Church as only He can do, that we may be effective in his praise, worship and mission.

[166] Posted by Pageantmaster ن [Repent Justin Welby] on 06-29-2008 at 08:41 AM • top

I suppose the other effect will be on TEC/ACoC - the PB’s charm/pr offensive combined with renewed vicious scorched earth/persecution has now reaped the fruit of a new Anglican province in her backyard.  Had a different response to the Dar communique been forthcoming this might have been averted and broken bonds with the rest of the Communion restored.  It is her and her bishops’ actions that have created these ructions in the Communion.

[167] Posted by Pageantmaster ن [Repent Justin Welby] on 06-29-2008 at 08:52 AM • top

Regarding the later Ecumenical councils, a very few short notes:  1)relics have been used in altars in Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches throughout history.  It is part of the incarnational theological understanding of the Church and while it isn’t central to my personal piety, that could be a failure of mine to overcome my western analytical if not Gnostic approach to the body.  2) Icons as used in Eastern Orthodoxy are understood as “written” not painted.  They are understood to be icons when they follow certain rules for representation and are only of certain topics such as Scripture or canonized saints.  Thus, an “icon” of Malcolm X is not an icon but a painting.  Read St. John of Damascus’ “In Defense of Icons”.  His tongue was torn out in defense of this principle.  It is our understanding that the principle protected is the Incarnation itself.  If God cannot be portrayed, Jesus cannot be God.  This is an important principle and many have died to uphold it.  If it fails, so fails Christian theology that the Bible is the Word of God.  Thus, the defense of proper veneration of icons is no different from upholding Holy Scripture and there is a christological principle that is upheld ... namely that “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”.  3) Clergy as a whole were not required to be celebate by any of the Ecumenical Councils as understood by the whole Church.  The issue was raised at the first council of Nicea and I recall one bishop at that time saying that if it was OK for Peter to have a wife, so might others.  That sentiment carried the day.  Later, it was stipulated that bishops must be selected out of the monastic ranks and that they must be celebate.  Obviously, this could not have happened before the rise of monasticism.  I believe the Church in Rome had a locally binding council around 550 (I really should look that up but I’m in a rush to get ready for church) that stipulated unmarried clergy.  Eastern Orthodoxy which holds to the Ecumenical Councils generally enjoys married deacons and priests but celibate bishops.  If you were interested in a reform of the Episcopacy, that would be one route to take once you had a significant monastic witness.  One limitation is that if one is to marry, he must do so before ordination to the deaconate.4)One aspect of the Seventh Ecumenical Council is to name Mary, the mother of Jesus, as “Theotokos”.  This comes as a distress to the many Nestorians among us who deny the unity of person of our Lord.
The older understanding of the Ecumenical Councils is that they were not called as in Vatican 1 and 2 to be “Ecumenical Councils” but they happened and afterwards, all Christian peoples received them and really by historical perspective, they come to be called Ecumenical.  Christianity is today divided but we can still have locally authoritative councils.  These seven councils call for a rigorous Christianity.  They should be understood as a plumbline to keep us straight.  As with Scripture, we need to approach everything with humility rather than legalism lest we put ourselves under condemnation and fall into despair.  Yes, we ought to strive.  A non-rigorous Christianity quickly becomes trivial.  At all times, in our striving, we must recognize that it is our Lord who upholds us at every step and it is the Church that is the repository and life of faith ... and not ourselves only.

[168] Posted by monologistos on 06-29-2008 at 09:05 AM • top

That’s “celibate”.  Apparently, I need caffeine to type.

[169] Posted by monologistos on 06-29-2008 at 09:07 AM • top

Dr. McDonald re post 154
I must beg to differ with your assertion that debates between anglo catholics and reformed are not helpful in confronting militant secularism.  One of the key tenets of postmodernism is epistimological relativism that holds that doctrinal truth can not be known and the search for it is irrelevant.  Careful and civil debates between catholics and reformed show that there is such a thing as doctrinal truth content and we can know it.  Pope Benedict has launched his attack on relativism based on the proposition that there is doctrinal truth. 
The problem with Anglicanism has been an unwillingness to stand firm on doctrinal matters.  LP shows that there are important doctrinal differences that should result in separate but friendly jurisdictions. 
However, admitting the truth of what LP says leads to another problem: that is that such honesty reveals the divided nature of Anglicanism which GAFCONers don’t want to face head on. 
BTW LP thanks for laying it out so clearly.

[170] Posted by morningsideanglican on 06-29-2008 at 09:15 AM • top

My Lord, this thread has become TOO poetic and sad.  A conservative document was released, and before I could actually digest it the conservative bloggers of record were already involved in internecine strife and accusations about integrity.  Here we see prefigured the larger struggle.  When allegiance to a united and diverse communion is renounced and the lunatics are allowed to run the asylum, the end is near.

Now, what I was going to say, immediately after reading the communique, was that this was another example of Anglican Fudge—just the conservative recipe.  A proclamation of “joy,” followed by a repeat of why we’re mad at everyone else, followed by a threat to take our marbles and go home, followed by the decision that we’re actually going to stay here, but YOU can’t play with OUR marbles.  Coupled with the other GAF(FE)CON happenings, the Anglican world is already snickering and yawning.

[171] Posted by anotherone on 06-29-2008 at 09:15 AM • top

Coupled with the other GAF(FE)CON happenings, the Anglican world is already snickering and yawning.

Whistling past the graveyard.  I suspect “snickering and yawning” are not high up the reaction chart at Canterbury this morning.

carl

[172] Posted by carl on 06-29-2008 at 09:18 AM • top

“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)”

Thanks be to God for all of the faithful Anglican disciples of Christ gathered in Jerusalem and thanks be to God for inspiring this clear and beautiful statement of faith which is the very real beginning of a way forward for all confessing Anglicans.

You have heard our prayers, Dear Heavenly Father, and we praise you!  Pour out Your blessings on all of these leaders and give them Your grace and favor in all that they do to advance Your kingdom.

Dear friends, God has provided us with faithful leadership for us!  REJOICE AND BE GLAD FOR THIS DAY!

[173] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 06-29-2008 at 10:22 AM • top

“...the Anglican world is already snickering and yawning.”

This statement brings a vision of Cruella DeVille, Snidley Whiplash, and few other not so nice characters to mind when I read it! And I agree with Carl…..I don’t think that Canterbury is yawning nor snickering this morning. But the TEO revisionists aren’t either. No they are not happy people right now as I read every post coming across the HoB/D listserv. They are already starting the falsehood of calling us the ones who have cracked the Communion! LOLOL!
Now that is laughable since they are the ones who have with their actions for the past five years of present have torn the fabric of the Communion and further rip it with every blessing/wedding of a homosexual and denial of the Authroity of the Bible and Jesus Christ as the Risen Lord. They are living in so much falseness and denial that they can’t see the light for the darkness!

[174] Posted by TLDillon on 06-29-2008 at 10:55 AM • top

I mentioned this earlier on TitusOneNine, but the reference to “four councils” seems clearly an echo of Lancelot Andrewes’ summary of Anglican faith: “One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period—;the centuries that is, before Constantine, and two after, determine the boundary of our faith.”

This has been a rather standard summary of Anglicanism since the time of the Caroline Divines.  Early Anglicans did indeed have problems with the Seventh Council—for the same reason that many Western Catholics did.  They feared that icons were idolatrous.  Most contemporary Anglicans would think they got that one wrong, I think.

There has been some helpful conversation over at T19. The Anglican stance seems never to have been to reject the fifth and sixth councils, since they simply further elaborate what was decided at Nicea and Chalcedon.

The bottom line is that I do not think that GAFCON is rejecting the last three ecumenical councils.  It is simply reaffirming a classic summary of the perameters of Anglican faith.

[175] Posted by William Witt on 06-29-2008 at 11:26 AM • top

4)One aspect of the Seventh Ecumenical Council is to name Mary, the mother of Jesus, as “Theotokos”.  This comes as a distress to the many Nestorians among us who deny the unity of person of our Lord.

Sorry, but that was the third ecumenical council, against Nestorius. (Thus Anglicans have long recognized Mary as the Mother of God, although our modern gnostics reject the teaching of the Council of Ephesus.) It was pretty obvious that Nestorius was in trouble; the council was held in the Church of St. Mary the Virgin.

I’m not really clear to me why the early Anglican divines were unhappy about the 5th and 6th councils. They objected to the 7th council’s treatment of icons.

[176] Posted by Ken Peck on 06-29-2008 at 12:13 PM • top

P.S., here is a convenient summary of the seven ecumenical councils:

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8067.asp
http://tinyurl.com/6o6ell

[177] Posted by Ken Peck on 06-29-2008 at 12:15 PM • top

Here’s a few scenarios of what we might encounter post-Jerusalem from 815 and Lambeth Palace. 

1. Denial: They will both remain in denial that the Anglican Communion is in crisis, brought on by the actions taken by The Episcopal Church to break the fellowship.

2. Despair: They will fall into despair, that they have lost control of the situation, as though they ever had control following the events of August 2003.

Now both of these reactions (#1 and #2) may have the same public face.  It will be difficult to know unless information is garnered from the inner circles of 815 and Lambeth Palace.  The public face will appear unchanged.  That will be frustrating for those who want some kind of drama to arise out of those two focus points.  But since 815 is basically now being dictated to by the lawyers (note how 815 responded to the massive loss in the Virginia courts on Friday - not one official is mentioned on the record and 815 takes the curious step of actually quoting unnamed sources inside its own office for its own official publication - which means the lawyers are running things now, make no mistake about it) and Lambeth Palace by bureaucrats - we will not see the wringing of hands and tearing of hair in public.  But that does not mean it isn’t going on somewhere.  Or that heads are not going to roll - the question remains who’s head?

3. Chaos: While both the scariest and healthiest response (scary because Anglicans fear Chaos more than they fear the devil) and healthy because it means that the players are coming out of denial and authoritarian control - the inner rings will begin to fragment as defections and betrayals breakout from inside the power centers.  If/when this happens, the need to find scapegoats to carry the pain will be tremendous.  So keep a pad of paper nearby to track scapegoats of the Week.  They can be a friend and a foe.  Loyalty becomes the reigning virtue.

Which leads to the next scenario:

4. Retaliation: Perhaps the most likely and the most troubling, we can expect retaliation from those whose points of power are actually threatened by the actions taken in Jerusalem.  This kind of retaliation can come from the traditional centers of power - 815 and Lambeth, but most likely (as in a Mafia hit), they will be contracted out.  The litigation could take an ugly turn, opposition research could be made public, and expect a few more public crucifixions.  Again, following the mafia motif, some friends will be bought off which will contribute to a sense of doom.  But it’s all a smokescreen to hide the breakdown of order inside centers of power as they actually shift from the public centers (i.e., 815 and Lambeth Palace) to the real centers of political power which to this point remain sequestered.  Who nominated Katharine Jefferts Schori?  Who nominated Rowan Williams?

5. Peace: At some point - who can say when, perhaps soon, perhaps in twenty years or after our lifetimes, there will be peace.  Its promised to us in the scriptures, though we may not recognize it at first.  Peace will come, not because of our own work but because of the grace of Jesus.  We know that at some point, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.  Our courage does not come from our circumstances and our confidence in ourselves (which will be sorely tested, as it has been all ready), but in the truth of the Gospel of our risen Lord Jesus Christ and the faith we have that God can be trusted to keep His promises.

Needless to say, all these possibilities can happen, could happen rapidly or over time.  But we all need to keep a sense of perspective and not merely react as events unfold, but to remain diligent that if the Holy Spirit is alive and is active and working in our lives, that we need to be watchful so that we can join Him in His work, not expect Him to join us in ours.  This will require far more than politics can deliver, though politics is essential when rebuilding structures.  It will require much of what we’ve seen in the witness of Jerusalem as the GAFCON pilgrims have experience spiritual renewal and restoration in their time gathered in conference. 

Now those thousands return home and we join them in the post-Communion prayer: And now, Father, send us out to do the work you have given us to do, to love and serve you as faithful witnesses of Christ our Lord. To him, to you, and to the Holy Spirit, be honor and glory, now and for ever. Amen.

bb

[178] Posted by BabyBlue on 06-29-2008 at 12:17 PM • top

I thought the recessional hymn this morning was most appropriate considering the recent events:
“The Church’s one Foundation”

Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed:
Yet saints their watch are keeping,
Their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song!

[179] Posted by NewAnglican on 06-29-2008 at 12:47 PM • top

bb [179]. I think there is another scenario. Episcopal Life prints the Communique today without comment. They will say they support the report of GAFCON, and then will go forward with their agenda. After all, meanings of words are relative to them.

[180] Posted by Dr. N. on 06-29-2008 at 01:02 PM • top

#180, New Anglican - Did everyone have that same recessional hymn - The Church’s One Foundation?  Our Anglican church in FL did.

[181] Posted by Theodora on 06-29-2008 at 01:35 PM • top

The Church’s one foundation fit with the collect and Epistle this morning also- which seemed to absolutely fit with the timing of the GAFCON release.

[182] Posted by cbates on 06-29-2008 at 01:47 PM • top

“#180, New Anglican - Did everyone have that same recessional hymn - The Church’s One Foundation?  Our Anglican church in FL did.”

Not sure, I went to TEC this morning. Probably so, I go to a CANA church some and all seems to be the same!!

[183] Posted by NewAnglican on 06-29-2008 at 02:24 PM • top

My church sang the same hymn for the processional before the service.

[184] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 06-29-2008 at 02:28 PM • top

Same here in SC MissMurphy.. Recessional was
Christ is made the sure foundation, Christ the head and cornerstone…........

And our priest is on vacation, so they’ve been planned a long time. 

What a wonderful thing it would have been to hear all the the churches that sang this morning..

Grannie Gloria

[185] Posted by Grandmother on 06-29-2008 at 02:31 PM • top

Let’s get back on track with the title of this thread!
What has come out of Jerusalem this past week basically says that ++Rowan doesn’t speak for 70% (approx.) of Anglicans any longer! That’s gotta be an embarrassment of some sort for him. I would think that he might want to do or say something now especially since Lambeth is just around the corner!

[186] Posted by TLDillon on 06-29-2008 at 02:34 PM • top

He might “want to do or say something now,”  ODC, but I’m not holding my breath!

[187] Posted by HeartAfire on 06-29-2008 at 02:38 PM • top

We had “The Church’s One Foundation” for the entry procession, and “Christ Is Made the Sure Foundation” for the exit procession. (Where I’m from, good Episcopalians don’t “recess.”)

Indeed, the GAFCON process may bring about progress, as the liberals regress and ultimately recess.

[188] Posted by Ralph on 06-29-2008 at 02:40 PM • top

HeartAFire,
I understand where you are coming from completely however, IMHO it would be a HUGE mistake on his part if he just goes along as though nothing has happened or changed hoping that no one will notice. I don’t see ++Rowan being that “unintelligent”.

[189] Posted by TLDillon on 06-29-2008 at 02:43 PM • top

By th way…..With 600 bishops posed to leave in the CofE and align with GAFCOn, to ignore and say or do nothing would really be a PR blunder.

[190] Posted by TLDillon on 06-29-2008 at 02:46 PM • top

I see no other way to read the document but as a victory for evangelicals and a defeat for Anglo-Catholics. I will never accept that the problem is Roman Catholicism and that the answer to the problem is the 39 Articles. Our problems are liberalism, secularism, materialism, greed, and perversion, along with other heresies and vices, and the Roman Catholic Church is our most important ally in the fight against these things. The 1662 Prayer Book was the worst possible choice as a standard for world Anglicanism, and the American Church—quite rightfully—has always taken a different path as regards the essential content of the eucharistic prayer. And the omission of the last three ecumenical councils, along with the other matters I have mentioned, makes it plain that it was not considered necessary or important to consult anyone of an Anglo-Catholic orientation before finalizing the document. The problem which most threatens the unity of the conservative coalition—the liberal and uncatholic practice of women’s ordination—goes unaddressed, just when our Church of England brothers and sisters need our support. Apparently for evangelicals the problem of female “bishops” conducting invalid ordinations and breakng the apostolic succession is not very troubling. Perhaps Forward in Faith will be able to persuade me that we and our concerns weren’t completely ignored, and I reserve the right to change my mind if that happens, but for now I’m very discouraged.

[191] Posted by Chazzy on 06-29-2008 at 03:29 PM • top

To me, the true issue that is most important to those of us in North America is to get an orthodox Province formed- not getting into the evangelical vs anglo catholics issues.  I agree on secularism and “new Age religion” being the primary challenges we have faced that has caused consternation to many of us.  I think between CCP and FIF- NA and groups of laity like Remain Faithful (http://remainfaithful.org/) that we can accomplish what we need to accomplish here- and I am encouraged by that aspect.  I prefer to focus on our essential needs of our faith at this time rather than differences that still would not interfer with our beliefs being centered on Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour and on the Bible being the revealed word of God that is not open to ongoing “reinterpretations” like TEC and Canada leaders have promoted.  No question that Gay and Lesbian marriages is counter to Scripture- so that aspect is clearly covered by the communique.
Just my two cents.

[192] Posted by cbates on 06-29-2008 at 03:38 PM • top

600 bishops to leave the CoE???  Heavens!!!  How many are there?

[193] Posted by Nikolaus on 06-29-2008 at 04:09 PM • top

To me, the true issue that is most important to those of us in North America is to get an orthodox Province formed- not getting into the evangelical vs anglo catholics issues.

But the statement takes us right to the heart of those issues by saying the following:

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.

That means that those of us who are aligned with the GAFCON “church within a church” are expected to subscribe to the Articles as a doctrinal standard. What else could those words possibly mean? So the writers of the GAFCON communique got us into the “evangelical vs. Anglo-Catholic” issues. My point is that I wish they hadn’t done so. They should have stuck to relativism, secularism and the other issues which are actually worth fighting about and over which people are making enormous sacrifices all over North America. There is no need to revisit sixteenth-century controversies. We have enough modern controversies!

[194] Posted by Chazzy on 06-29-2008 at 04:13 PM • top

There is such hope in this statement by GAEFCON.  The majority of my parish became members of CANA a few months ago and have left our property and bought a new church property.  It has been such a relief to be rid of TEC and all it stands for. I have to say that our entire congregation is full of excitement and enthusiasm. This certainly will add to that joy.  Look forward to the day of a new Anglican Province in North America.

[195] Posted by sadie on 06-29-2008 at 04:23 PM • top

Nikolaus,
Oops! I hadn’t realized my faux pas….I meant 600 clergy which includes some bishops! Sorry!

[196] Posted by TLDillon on 06-29-2008 at 04:26 PM • top

I would like to point out that this document is what was expected. As far as the Global South is concerned, the ABC and Canterbury are no longer important to what it means to be Anglican except as historical interest. The Global South will set up new leadership, themselves. They will set up new rules for membership, and call the new denomination the Anglican Communion. I can’t see the point of saying that they are still within the Anglican Communion when at the same time they are out of communion with most of the Western (Northern) Church.

When your membership is what, 80-90% of the church-going communion?, it’s fair to say that they are the Anglican Communion, MP.  It seems to me that what they are saying is that they recognize Canterbury as an instrument of the communion only insofar as it derives its authority from orthodoxy and Scripture.  They will be delighted when Canterbury returns to the path, but until then it’s just another secular political project.

[197] Posted by Jeffersonian on 06-29-2008 at 04:32 PM • top

Chazzy, what about the 39 articles gives you heartburn?

[198] Posted by Going Home on 06-29-2008 at 04:35 PM • top

Re: Chazzy.  Isn’t there something a bit odd about someone who claims to be Anglican but rejects the BCP of 1662?

It has been a standard Evangelical view for some time that the old mix of High, Low, Broad and Evangelical muddled along all right until the Oxford Movement came along and introduced an entirely alien element which wanted to overturn the classic formularies rather than interpret them. 

You could argue that in GAFCON, ‘classic’ Anglicanism is reasserting itself against the intrusion both of Catholicism and Liberalism, both of which have been remarkably successful at making themselves at home in the Anglican nest. Does the discomfort for A/Cs at the moment lie in the fact that the current furore is making them ask whether they have always been cuckoos in the nest?

Not intending to be unkind - but just asking.

[199] Posted by William S on 06-29-2008 at 05:16 PM • top

#195 There are approximately 44 Diocesan bishops and 70 suffragan/assistant bishops in the Church of England.

[200] Posted by driver8 on 06-29-2008 at 05:26 PM • top

One can also see GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration as a gracious invitation to individuals, parishes, dioceses and now provinces, to realign with the Church of the ages. 

It is an offer of a safe refuge from the composite blended religion and political/social agendas of the revisionists.
 
Each person or group can now make their decision according to conscience and the common mind of the group.  Not every person or group will choose traditional Christianity, but at least now there is a choice.

The Anglo-catholics were well-represented at GAFCON with Schofield, Iker and Ackerman present and presumably shaping and approving the end result.

[201] Posted by Theodora on 06-29-2008 at 05:34 PM • top

#201 The catholic element existed in Anglicanism since at least the 1620s. It may be an element you don’t like or wished didn’t exist - but it has been part of the Anglican mix since the early seventeenth century.

I think clarity is certainly helpful. If the Anglo Catholics are not welcome it will doubtless become clear. For the moment, folks seem willing to work together.

[202] Posted by driver8 on 06-29-2008 at 05:34 PM • top

Again, Driver8, the strong Anglo-catholic bishops, Iker, Schofield and Ackerman were present and helped shape the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration. 

Look for their statements soon.  There is a follow-up meeting in England this week or next.

[203] Posted by Theodora on 06-29-2008 at 05:38 PM • top

I think that’s right - All Souls, Langham Place if I recall (one of the great English evangelical powerhouses). I’m not sure how much the orthodox Anglo Catholic folks in England have been courted or consulted - anyone know?

[204] Posted by driver8 on 06-29-2008 at 05:52 PM • top

Regarding the inclusion of Anglo-Catholics in the post GAFCON era:  Look at the American bishops who attended.  Look at the bishops who are actively seeking to separate from TEC.  Iker, Schofield, Ackerman, Love, Beckwith are all much more Anglo-Catholic than evangelical.  I assure you that Bihops Iker and Ackerman we not silent with regards to the need for the place of Anglo-Catholics in the new Anglican Communion. 

I am one and I am absolutely rejoicing at what has come out of Jerusalem.  I see the Communique and subsequent statements as seeking a restoration of Classic Anglicanism.  The very foundation of the English church is not the protestant movements of the 16th and 17th centuries.  The church in “England” was catholic for a thousand years before the Elizabethan settlement.  The living out of Classic Anglicanism has been broad enough to contain evangelical and catholic.  If the tone of GAFCON leans toward the protestant side, then there needs to be an accomodation and the catholics need to assert their right to their legitimate place in the Communion.

[205] Posted by frreed on 06-29-2008 at 05:55 PM • top

I think that catholic Anglicans have managed to live with the 39 Articles for a long time, and that those who are in the Tractarian tradition have done so for nearly two centuries, since the publication of Tract XC by John Henry Newman.

Perhaps some might care to read that:
http://tinyurl.com/5jfvyl

One of the ironies of the current troubles is that the Anglicans of the Global South are simply reflecting back to the English and American churches what they were taught by our missionaries in the 19th century. They learned their lessons well and have remained faithful. We have gone on to other gospels.

But the carping that is appearing from some here about the acceptance of the 1662 BCP and 39 Articles as part of the Anglican confession, does seem to point to the inherent problem which the fellowship faces as the differences between evangelicals, charismatics and catholics threaten the unity of the Global Anglican Fellowship.

[206] Posted by Ken Peck on 06-29-2008 at 06:25 PM • top

So Jeffersonian, It is actually not fair to say that the GS is now the Anglican Communion. It is fair to say that they have started a new, quite large, denomination.

Wishful thinking, MP.  This ABC has made himself irrelevent by his dithering, his double-dealing and his utter lack of leadership.  The GS is now far and away the most vibrant expression of Anglicanism in the world today.  TEC and the ACoC have the money, for now, but given the deathbed demographics of these two gasping entities, the revenue streams are just a decade or so from drying up and what discretionary patrimony is left will evaporate quickly with the sue-happy harridan now occupying the office of PB.

Who do you think the next (Tory) PM will appoint to the ABC spot: a TECotropic pansexualist or a fellow that will be more amenable to the 90% of Her Majesty’s Church that can actually find their way to one?  And once that happens, who’s going to be on the outside looking in?

[207] Posted by Jeffersonian on 06-29-2008 at 06:27 PM • top

#203 Driver8,

More than 600 Church of England clergy representing almost as many parishes are expected to swear allegiance to the new body when they meet on Tuesday at All Souls, Langham Place, which is regarded as Britain’s evangelical flagship.

I knew I had read it and I knew I had mis-typed my original message in #192 which is why I corrected it in #198.

[208] Posted by TLDillon on 06-29-2008 at 06:38 PM • top

I know this is a bit off the thread topic- but due to the faithful readers of this thread I want to ask this question-
Is it just me- or do others believe the $ 581,000 in funds that TEC shows on their balance sheet needs a movement from within the Church to insure those funds are spent the way they were intended by the donors?  I am sickened by TEC suing parishes for property and assets that those parishes built and paid for without a single penny from TEC. (largely trust funds, no doubt that were given by devout orthodox Episcopalians over the years- and now revisionists promote their liberal agendas with these funds. I suspect there is a huge breach of fiduciary responsibility given their cavalier attitude on every other topic known to mankind- but someone will likely have to sue to find out just to what extent).

[209] Posted by cbates on 06-29-2008 at 06:40 PM • top

above should be $ 581,000,000!  Sorry!

[210] Posted by cbates on 06-29-2008 at 06:41 PM • top

“I know this is a bit off the thread topic- but due to the faithful readers of this thread I want to ask this question-
“Is it just me- or do others believe the $ 581,000 in funds that TEC shows on their balance sheet needs a movement from within the Church to insure those funds are spent the way they were intended by the donors?  I am sickened by TEC suing parishes for property and assets that those parishes built and paid for without a single penny from TEC. (largely trust funds, no doubt that were given by devout orthodox Episcopalians over the years- and now revisionists promote their liberal agendas with these funds. I suspect there is a huge breach of fiduciary responsibility given their cavalier attitude on every other topic known to mankind- but someone will likely have to sue to find out just to what extent). “
Welcome to the club!! I am one of the dummies that left and came back!! CANA was not all it was built up to be. Now I am more confused than ever!! TEC is not the answer and my hopes and prayers for resolution will never happen. I now understand about the wondering in the wilderness is biblical times!!

[211] Posted by NewAnglican on 06-29-2008 at 07:50 PM • top

MadPotter-

Contrary to what TEC tells people- they are NOT the owner of the property.  In most cases the Diocese is- but some states (like Virginia) that is not even the case.  But regardless of the real property- it bothers me greatly they have control of over half a million dollars that was given by traditional Episcopalians and now they use the money for their revisionist new age “theology”.

[212] Posted by cbates on 06-29-2008 at 07:56 PM • top

Billion- not million.  I get upset just thinking of how they have hijacked our Church- forgive my typos, please.

[213] Posted by cbates on 06-29-2008 at 07:57 PM • top

[off topic comments about lay presidency, WO, Continuing Anglicans and other Anglo-Catholics, whether there are any true Anglo-Catholics in TEC, etc, etc deleted, commenter banned]

[214] Posted by LP on 06-29-2008 at 07:57 PM • top

I have a hard time seeing how anglocatholic, orthodox Episcopalians should simply “bow out”.  We are the historic faith.  As long as the essential elements of Jesus Christ being our Lord and Saviour and the only true way to salvation, and the Bible being the revealed word of God are there- why is there not room for us all?  There will inevitably be minor differences from one area to the next of local “customs” (example I watched with interest the Nigerian ladies doing what must have been a local procession and dance at GAFCON- I could not make out the words to what they were chanting or singing to- but they were all dressed up in their local dress for Africa- does that mean I could not be part of the same Church?  It was obvious this was something they enjoyed and was traditional for their culture as many ladies stood within the seated section and sang along and clapped in unison.  For me it need not be a deterrent to our Church as long as the essentials are still there.  It is quite another matter to be in a “Church” that teaches “if it feels good do it” theology and does not believe in Jesus Christ being our Saviour or that the Bible is the revealed word of God.

[215] Posted by cbates on 06-29-2008 at 08:23 PM • top

LP, I don’t think you have the right to question the integrity or the faith of any of the anglocatholic bishops you have just dissed.  There is no more faithful bishop on this earth than +Iker.  He has demonstrated his faith and strength repeatedly during his entire episcopacy.  I think you owe each of these bishops an apology.  Anglicanism has always bragged about its broad tent.  You apparently are willing to shove the anglocatholics under the bus.  Well, unfortunately for you, we will not go quietly.

[216] Posted by terrafirma on 06-29-2008 at 08:27 PM • top

I just had an interesting discussion with my Rector concerning Anglo Catholic vs evangelical components within the Anglican Communion.  We agree that as long as the essential beliefs of our faith are not compromised we can all stand together- AND have our own forms of worship.  The key is those essential beliefs, in my opinion.

[217] Posted by cbates on 06-29-2008 at 08:41 PM • top

Re: post #180
I do miss the expurgated verse of this great hymn:
The Church shall never perish.
Her dear Lord to defend
To guide, sustain and cherish
Is with her till the end.
Though there be those that hate her,
False sons within her pale,
Against both foe and traitor
She ever shall prevail.

[218] Posted by Ameryx on 06-29-2008 at 08:45 PM • top

[further off-topic comments about St. Louis Declaration, Continuing versus other Anglo-Catholics, etc, deleted]

[219] Posted by LP on 06-29-2008 at 08:50 PM • top

[off topic comments about Anglo-Catholics, Continuing Anglicans, etc. deleted]

[220] Posted by LP on 06-29-2008 at 09:02 PM • top

CBATES (222)—

PS You write

we can all stand together- AND have our own forms of worship.

To emphasize—I am not talking about liturgical styles. Throughout this thread, when I’ve said “anglocatholic,” I do not mean “high church”—I mean the theology and orthodox/catholic/patristic beliefs called “anglocatholicism”, of which the Affirmation of St. Louis (which I quote above) is a good basic statement.

If all you mean by “anglocatholic” is “high church liturgy” then, yes, I agree with you—there’s absolutely nothing about GAFCON or the Declaration which would preclude membership of both “high church” and “low church” parishes and clergy… and, indeed, a degree of liturgical variety (within reason) is arguably a good thing within a denomination.

So perhaps we were just posting at cross-purposes by what we mean by “anglocatholic”?

pax,
LP

[221] Posted by LP on 06-29-2008 at 09:10 PM • top

LP,

Your unjustified, spiteful and extrememly arrogant
rant(s) are the reason any positives that have come out of GAFCON are in danger of failing for all of us.  To impugn the integrity, faith and sincerity of these bishops, and anglo-catholics in general, is the height of hubris and the desire of satan at this moment in time. 

Taking your argument at face value would mean that the vast majority of Christians (Roman and Orthodox) over the majority of history (1500+ years before the reformation and all subsequent) have been in error and have failed in proclaiming the Gospel.  Surely God would have intervened and the catholic faith would have died off centuries ago.

[222] Posted by frreed on 06-29-2008 at 09:17 PM • top

LP wrote:

Though this is obviously a topic a great many posters are interested in, I expect I’ll get scolded and censored if I continue to post on it in this thread.

Perhaps a separate SFiF thread on this issue might be created, since there does seem to be so much interest on the topic…

Well, there’s a series of three articles that Fr Kennedy wrote last year about Anglo-Catholic/Evangelical differences. And of course for those who wish to discuss the WO issue I believe that thread is still open.

[223] Posted by kyounge1956 on 06-29-2008 at 09:30 PM • top

Your unjustified, spiteful and extrememly arrogant rant(s)

I resent this offensive personal attack as uncharitable, unwarranted and downright untrue.

In these supposed anti-GAFCON “rants” above—as you mischaracterize my posts—you will see me say:

Wow! Now that’s a good, strong Declaration. I’m both impressed and gratified by its strength

I see in this Declaration… quite a number of positive things.

in fraternal Anglican well-wishing, sharing in their encouragement and joy!

It has taken the first step by explicitly renouncing the validity and authority of apostate bodies.

I think the Declaration is to be praised for moving toward that kind of necessary clarity.

I want to see GAFCON succeed in creating a stable jurisdiction to be a safe harbor for the spiritual growth of souls

I have also praised GAFCON and the Declaration, along similar lines, on other blogs.

Yes, I personally maintain a theological “anglocatholicism” which has some reservations about the Declaration—a “theological anglocatholicism” which is characterized by the Continuing Church movement’s Affirmation of St. Louis. And that that particular Anglican belief has some “objective” and “logical” consequences on the very relevant issues of “communion” and “jurisdiction” which I have attempted to set forth. I have never pretended otherwise. So, yes, I think there are some fundamental theological differences between that “anglocatholicism” and “angloprotestantism” which I have tried to explain and address on this thread—particularly because so many different posters were commenting on it made clear that this was a subject of interest to a lot of readers.

That doesn’t prevent me from thinking that the Declaration being worthy of praise, nor of seeing in it hope for a bright and positive God-serving future for the GAFCON movement. And I have said as much (here and elsewhere) as well.

.

My objective (albeit occasionally long-winded) - perhaps occasionally forceful - presentation of those differences has always been intended as trying to provide some perspective and feedback from that particular perspective, as part of the “open, honest debate” which this site is supposed to provide—never to rant, insult, or belittle. I’ve gone out of my way to avoid anything of the sort—and, as above, if my comments have given unintended offense, I have hastened both to apologize and clarify as soon as I perceived any such offense possibly having been given.

.

I gather you have a different perspective and theological position. Well and good. And if I expressed myself in a way which hurt your feelings, I apologize for whatever word choice upset you.

However, just because we may disagree on some points does not give you the right to insult me nor characterize those efforts toward a productive exchange of views a “rant”—just as my intellectual disagreements with other posters here (including yourself) would give me no right to insult them nor mischaracterize their posts.

To state - openly, honestly and courteously - points of disagreement is not to insult or belittle. And I do not apologize for having my own considered and prayerful theological convictions, nor for the attempt to discuss those issues—even the tough ones!—in a rational and mature way with other people who share an interest in discussing them. I’m sorry if you do not, likewise, think that all Anglican positions have a right to be discussed here but - if so - I believe that is your failing, not mine.

.

Anyway, I think that is all I need to say in response to your personal attack.

If you have some particular points of concern or intellectual debate you wish to pursue, politely!, I’d be happy to continue this exchange with you off-line by email… I doubt there is any need or benefit to other readers to carry those on here.

.

pax Christi,
LP

[224] Posted by LP on 06-29-2008 at 09:51 PM • top

With all due respect to LP—with whom I am overwhelmingly in agreement concerning MOST of his comments, at least so far as many of his factual and historical details are concerned. I also find myself in agreement with many of overarching conclusions, though I think his methodology for arriving at these conclusions his transparently flawed.

Having said all of this, let me offer to the readers of SF my opinion: LP’s theology and ecclesiology are VERY STRAINED. And I must speak out regarding a fairly pronounced theme that seems to continually run through his comments.

My most significant disagreement with him has to do with his EXTREMELY NARROW definition of “Anglo-Catholicism.” For whatever reason, he seems to only be able to define “true” Anglo-Catholics as being signators of the St. Louis Affirmation. This is simply nonsense. True Anglo-Catholicism cannot—and should not—be equated with the fetishes and obsessions of the men who started the “Continuing Churches.”

MOST of the Anglo-Catholics (indeed, most of the Anglicans) in the world today have never even HEARD OF the St. Louis Affirmation. Nor would the overwhelming majority of Anglo-Catholics sign onto this document even if they knew what it was.

I have a good measure of respect for the intentions of the authors of the St. Louis Affirmation. But the practical FRUIT of that document has been the endless institutional fragmentation of countless tiny schismatic “Churches” that somehow believe that THEY—and only they—constitute the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

These “Churches” are, for the most part, a joke. To equate THEIR fussy and forensic theology with authentic Catholicism is patently absurd.

The St. Louis Affirmation was a document put together by a tiny minority of cranky schismatics. The theological reasoning that undergirds the St. Louis Affirmation is, at best, very flimsy and thin. It bears the indelible stamp of men who obsessed with an almost fetishistic take on both Christianity and “Catholicism.” 

There was Catholicism in the Church of England LONG before the Elizabethan Settlement, and English Catholicism was thriving long after the Elizabethan Settlement and long before the St. Louis Affirmation.

The fact that so many genuine (theological and pastoral) GIANTS of Anglo-Catholicism, such as Dean Munday of Nashotah House or Bishop Iker, are wildly enthusiastic about GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration belies the foundational premise that underlies LP’s opinions.

I assume, though I do not know for certain, that LP is, in fact, a member of one of these (largely irrelevant and rather silly) “Continuing Churches.”

The history of the “Continuing Churches” in North America is nothing less than a scandal. The truth of the matter is, the “Continuing Churches” are endlessly squabbling; they are incessantly breaking apart into ever-smaller bodies; their theological positions would not pass muster ANYWHERE in the REAL WORLD; neither Rome nor the Eastern Orthodox Churches want ANYTHING to do with these dysfunctional misfits.

LP made a brave attempt (either yesterday or the day before) to depict Anglo-Catholicism as being authentically located within several of the larger of these Churches.

In fact, in spite of what LP insists to the contrary, at least 45 or 50 “Churches” (most of which have less than 50 members) that have sprung from the farce that gave birth to the St. Louis Affirmation.

Today, I note that LP continues to try to equate authentic Anglo-Catholicism with these “Continuing Churches.” 

I am posting this comment of mine for the sake of all those who are unacquainted with history and the reality of these “Churches.” Just because LP says something—and says it quite impressively at times, does NOT make it true. And in this, he is dead wrong. IMHO

[225] Posted by bluenarrative on 06-29-2008 at 09:53 PM • top

bluenarrative gets the last word. Let’s head to the other threads. There is much to talk about.

[226] Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-29-2008 at 09:56 PM • top

Comments are closed.

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.