Brief thoughts on GAFCON| Part One

GAFCON is over, the communion is still intact, everyone has something to say. So why not throw my two cents into the giant Coin-Star Machine that is the Anglican blogsphere.

The Final Statement Can be found Here

The significant meat of the statement is found in “The Jerusalem Declaration.” By and large it resembles your run of the mill catechism , something that most people should be able to agree with. I did have some concerns though. Many, myself included, have the stance that Anglicanism is the third branch on the tree of apostolic faith, with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. A few passages in the statement lead me to believe that those in the New American Province may not be as dear to that idea as we are.

The first was around article three which reads:

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.

I’m just curious as to why the first four councils. There were Seven before the East-West Schism (after that they took a very administrative nature). I would like to know why the leaders of GAFCON rejected the repudiation of Monosphysitism (5th Council), the affirmation of Christs dual wills (human and divine – 6th council), and the veneration of icons (7th council). These are major decisions in the life and history of the unified church. We should be affirming them as part of our common heritage.

My second concern is found in article four which reads (emphasis my own):

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.

I want to know what “authoritative” is defined as and how it would be manifest. I am more “Anglo-Catholic” than I am “Calvinist Evangelical”, and as such I have certain qualms with the following articles.

XXV. Of the Sacraments…
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

I uphold that all seven Sacraments are divinely instituted and are useful in spiritual formation, and would say that by limiting God to Two Sacraments is limiting his power.

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper…

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Many Anglicans do belive that the Eucharist is indeed the body and blood of Christ -in a manor that may or may not be transubstantiation, we can not know how- and should be honoured as such. After all, we pray in the BCP that the Holy Spirit would make it as such.

I understand that they have been formative in Anglican development, and have been enforced (if at all) with varying amounts of leniency over time. I have no doubt that Anglo-Catholics and High-Church-Anglicans would be welcome in the New American Province, but Im not sure how the leadership would react to such deacons, priests, and bishops. Would they permit such beliefs, or crack the whip to enforce the Calvinism.

Likewise I wonder how these views will effect our Eccumenical Relations. Granted this is currently just a faction of the church, and every church has them, but if this becomes the prevailing statement of modern Anglicanism, how will this effect our relations with the Catholics and Orthodox. Many of us yearn for communion with our ancient brethren, something that we have been growing towards more and more in the past century. I would hate to have this statement destroy our chances at that, and inhibiting our place as an ancient church in the process.

+Alex Resurgent

That they may be one…

Due to recent events, both in my life and the life of the Anglican Church, topics of Church Structure and Spiritual Authority have been on my mind a lot, and this is probably the first in a series revolving around that. Bare with me…

An old friend of I had a good discussion about church unity, and what constitutes it. I shant bore you with the play by play details, but I think her point was that the Roman Church is the only “valid” church, and the rest of Christianity (including myself) should reconcile ourselves to Rome. There is validity to her argument. Christ Himself wished that we would be one, and that is something that we should all strive for.

But what would this “unity” look like? The Roman Catholic Church mastered this concept for millenia, with a strong bureaucracy (the Pontificate), and a universal language for worship (Latin). The Congregationalists likewise turned “unity” into an art by not having any institutional (or necessarily theologically) but still by maintaining an identity.

A few images of this unity come to mind:

Unity in Baptism and Belief in Christ
The church arguably has this already, save for a few exceptions. All Christians profess a belief in Christ, and most have been baptized. Baptism may seem like a small unifying factor, but it is also nearly-universally recognized as being valid, regardless of who did the baptism. Unfortunately the unity ends there as many Christians have fundamental disagreements about the basics of the faith, such as the nature of Christ, his work, and how it relates to the world today.

I try to keep this Unity at the front of my mind, especially when talking theology with people. I may believe that one thing is true, and that the other person is guilty of total heresy, but at the end of the day, they are still my brother or sister in Christ.

Unity in Creed or Confession
This is probably the second most prevalent form of unity; unity centered around a Confession or Catechism, and can be found prominently amongst the protestant churches (Small Catechism for Lutherans, Belgic Confession for Reformed churches, 39 Articles for Anglicans). Plus side for this is that Families of Confessions actually have a basic common faith and history, downside is that they don’t have to share a common vision on what the faith should look like. How many Lutheran/Presbyterian Denominations are there? In a way, these divisions may be even more personal that the inter-denominational divisions.

Unity in Governance
This is a HUGE one, and responsible for more divisions than any other, probably because it is the strongest form of unity, with less room for liberty. Churches united through behemoth style bureaucracies can be amazing for providing unity across states or nations. I think that it is amazing to know that, as an Anglican, I can walk into an Anglican church anywhere on earth and know about what Im going to get, and know that I have a direct institutional link with that church. I cant say that about non-denominational churches. This fact is true for Catholics and Orthodox churches, and to a lesser extent the mainline protestants. The HUGE downside is that it is very easy for the little guy to get over run.

On a side note, the Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox Churches maintain belief in Apostolic Succession, the faith that they posses an unbroken linage of Bishops to the apostles. Plus side: provides connection the past and some legitmacy of the faith. Downside is that it can be easily hijacked by wayward Bishops who can preach apostasy under the guise of legitimacy (See Liberal Catholic Churches).

I dont know what “Unity” is supposed to look like today. I dont think that my freinds dream of a universal Roman church will come anytime soon. The Second and Third views, although provides coherency in faith, also breeds division, disdain, neither of which are Christian virtues; meanwhile the first candy coats serious differences that need discussion.

Any thoughts?

+A. Resurgent

Feast of St. Peter and St Paul