Brief Thoughts on GAFCON| Part Two

It would appear that my colleague +N.T.Wright beat me to the punch for my second thought on GAFCON.

Article 13 of the Jerusalem 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.

The fifth section of the GAFCON final statement read as such, again, emphasis my own

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.

I have a few concerns about the bolded areas.

The first is in regards to this Primate’s Council. I, along with many other observers, would like to know what powers this council will vest itself with, and who will ‘make the cut’ to join the council.

The second is like it, what will the New North American Province look like? They mention the Common Cause Partnership, which is a confederation of Nine Different Anglican groups, each with a different orientation, goal, system of oversight, ect… Will these groups unite and become “The Church of of the Province in the New World” (Yes, that is my suggested title), or will Orthodox Anglicanism turn into something like the Orthodox Churches with a myriad of jurisdictions, all in inter communion?

My big beef is, however, with this exclusionary tone in the passages above. It sounds like this Council has given itself the right to determine what “Orthodox Anglicanism” is. I do not think anyone will pretend that some highly suspect Bishops exist within the Episcopal Church, but I don’t think all of them are, although many maybe more liberal than the GAFCON primates would like. Would these Bishops be heretics? What is the litmus test for abandoning the faith? And who gets to set it?

On a whole, Im happy that over a thousand people came together and reaffirmed their Christian belief, but I would like to see more clarity in some of their proposals before I can say that Im on Board.

+Alex Resurgent
Feast of St. Thomas the Apostle

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

Anglican Theology per N.T. Wright on The Colbert Report…

Great Interview, I encourage watching it at the Colbert website, but it isnt quite what I want to address.

About Two Thirds of the way into the interview, Bishop Wright defines all of Anglican theology in a nutshell:

The great thing about Anglicans is that we have no theology of our own; if something is true, then Anglicans believe it… or that’s the theory anyway.

Bishop Wright did two great things in that sentence, one is that he defined Anglicanism in a brevity that I have tried to achieve when explaining it to my friends.

Secondly, in the disclaimer he addressed the strain occurring within the communion right now, and what is causing it. There a dozens of theories as to what is at the heart of the mini-schism between the Episcopal Church and the Wider Anglican Community. The media blames it on homosexuality, many Anglicans would argue that it hinges on ‘the authority of scripture’, others would attribute it to fear of change, selling out to society, or a myriad of other things. But, whether Bishop Wright agrees to it or not, it all comes down to truth. What does it look like, where do we find it, what do we do with it.

The Anglican method for finding truth is the “three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.” And, unfortunately, the Homosexual issue has pitted the legs against each other. The “traditional marriage” argument invokes scripture (after all Christ is the way, the truth and the life” and tradition (its never been done before), while the “pro SSM” side invokes reason (homosexuality is natural, how can it be sinful?) coupled with the scriptural principal of equality (for there are no more Jews and Gentiles in Christ).

What I hope we find with Gafcon and Lambeth is a further exploration into what us confessionless Anglicans define as truth. Perhaps if we cant agree on this, its time for us to split, and thats a suggestion I dont make lightly.

+Alex Resurgent