GAFON said at the 2017 spring meeting of their primates that were going to appoint a bishop for Europe, with particular attention to the British Isles. While they were figuring out just how to do this and who would be the bishop for this effort, another group (CESA) ordained Jonathan Pryke a bishop for similar purposes. One wonders what that is all about.
But now GAFCON has now decided to use the Anglican Church in North America as the vehicle for its efforts to introduce what it considers "true" Anglicanism to England and Europe.
Now there will be two bishops beating the bushes in England and all of Europe, claiming to be true Anglicans but denying the ecclesiastical validity of the Anglican churches already there.
GAFCON and ACNA are involved in a schismatic two-step.
Archbishop Foley of ACNA announced yesterday in Edinburgh, Scotland, that Canon Andy Lines will be ordained as GAFCON bishop.
You can read his bio HERE.
Archbishop Foley stated,
"The GAFCON Primates have asked our Province, the Anglican Church in North America, to take on the task of providing a missionary bishop for Scotland. Our Province was formed at the direction of GAFCON 2008 after many of the Provinces of GAFCON had provided the same kind of oversight for clergy and congregations in North America. They have asked us to consecrate Canon Andy Lines."
"Our College of Bishops discussed and decided to accept this responsibility. Following the Canons of our Province, the Executive Committee of the Province was not only consulted, but also voted unanimously to support this endeavor. We also appointed an oversight Committee of Bishops to provide guidance and accountability for Canon Lines as he walks through our consecration process and to support him after he is consecrated a bishop. Archbishop Robert Duncan is chair of the committee which consists of three diocesan bishops: The Rt. Rev. Bill Atwood, The Rt. Rev. Charlie Master, and The Rt. Rev. David Hicks."
Two things to note from all this:
(i) ANCA makes the claim that the "Province of ACNA" was formed "at the direction of GAFCON 2008." ACNA makes this claim based on the fact that the Jerusalem Declaration states, "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 recognized by the Primates’ Council."
The Common Cause Partnership was before GAFCON 2008 "a province in the making" and many of its members were present at GAFCON. The notion that ACNA was formed "at the direction of GAFCON 2008" is a stretch. ACNA was formed at the direction of its own leadership, and in particular the leadership of Bishop Robert Duncan, deposed Episcopal bishop of Pittsburgh. To say that ACNA was formed at the direction of GAFCON 2008 makes it sound as if ACNA was a product of GAFCON. It was not.
(ii) Archbishop Duncan, now retired, is still in the mix. He is chair of the committee of bishops who will work with Lines. Duncan is back, and this time will be supporting the ministry of a ACNA bishop mucking about directly in the workings of the Scottish Episcopal, the Church of England and the CofE and TEC work in Europe.
GAFCON and ACNA are continuing to claim the moral high ground, referring again and again to the Lambeth 1998 resolution on sexuality (Resolution 1.10). Like the claim that ACNA was formed at the direction of GAFCON, the claim that Lambeth 1998:1.10 constitutes the established doctrine or discipline that is binding on the whole communion is just not true. It is not true even if the Windsor Report says so, or the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion says so. Lambeth was constituted as an instrument for sharing in a fellowship already established and signaled by being in communion with the See of Canterbury. It is not a binding deliberative body.
Proof of this is that ten years earlier Lambeth 1988 passed resolution 72 on "Epsicopal Responsibilities and Diocesan Boundaries." It too was assumed by many to be binding on all Anglican churches in the Communion. It stated,
"This Conference:
1. reaffirms its unity in the historical position of respect for
diocesan boundaries and the authority of bishops within these
boundaries; and in light of the above
2. affirms that it is deemed inappropriate behaviour for any bishop
or priest of this Communion to exercise episcopal or pastoral ministry
within another diocese without first obtaining the permission and
invitation of the ecclesial authority thereof.
3. urges all political and community leaders to seize every
opportunity to work together to bring about a just and peaceful
solution."
Lambeth 1988, Resolution 72, stands just as Lambeth 1998, Resolution 1.10 , as the resolved position of the Communion. The Windsor Report (section 155) called for a moratorium on actions contrary to Lambeth 1988, Resolution 72 just as it did on actions contrary to Lambeth 1998, 1.10.
But neither resolution is binding.
ACNA and GAFCON have regularly disregarded this resolution on the grounds that The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and now the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church of England have fallen away from the true faith.
GAFCON and ACNA are now dancing the schismatic two-step in Scotland and England. The Archbishop of Canterbury has to speak up, and quickly, to stop the dance. The objection is not about the binding nature of Lambeth 1988 resolution 72 or Lambeth 1998, 1.10, but about the reality that GAFCON and ACNA are mucking about because they believe that the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church of England are corrupted by a false gospel. If so, they are out of communion with those churches, as they are with TEC and The Anglican Church of Canada.
The rupture in the Anglican Communion now consists of a breach of trust and boundary crossing between some member churches of the communion, and some faux Provinces (ACNA) and the Church of England itself, whose relationships of full communion define which churches are part of the Anglican Communion. It must now be addressed as an internal matter for the Church of England.
This is no longer a matter for the Anglican Consultative Council, or the Primates, or the Lambeth Conference. This is a matter for the Church of England and its Primates.
The Episcopal Church owes much to the Scottish Episcopal Church and we need to stand by and with the SEC. In addition we too have churches in Europe and they are subject to raiding parties from ACNA and GAFCON as well. It is important that we stand with vigilance against the possibilities of ACNA and GAFCON incursion into the life of various of our parishes in Europe.
But most importantly, it is time for the Archbishop of Canterbury to act and separate the Church of England from communion with those who call the CofE morally compromised. Now the CofE is itself being taken to task, and as well the Scottish Episcopal Church. ACNA and GAFCON have come to Europe and are out to finally bring the war home to Mother.
There are now two world wide organizations, the one called the Anglican Communion, is "fellowship, within the one holy catholic and apostolic
church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional
churches in communion with the see of Canterbury."(Lambeth 1930). The other is The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans" organized as the GAFCON primates and their provinces together with certain regional bodies which they consider provinces or provinces in the making. The two are increasingly adversarial. And GAFCON / ACNA have now moved further into an offensive posture.
It is time to call them to account. It is time to ask, "Are you in communion with the See of Canterbury or not?"
Showing posts with label Church of England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church of England. Show all posts
2/25/2017
A short note on the title "One Body, One Faith," and marriage.
On February 15, the House of Bishops of the Church of England brought a report with the long and labor intensive title, Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations to the General Synod. It can be found HERE.
The Synod declined to receive the report because the three houses (Bishops, Clergy, Laity) could not agree on doing so.
Near the beginning of the statement the bishops quote Paul in Galatians,
"Close to the heart of the mystery of human existence is the way that identity and relationship are inseparable from one another. For Christians, it is being in Christ that secures our true identity and transforms all our human relationships. As St Paul writes, “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me...”(Galatians 2:19 ff)."
The bishops statement that, "it is being in Christ that secures our true identity and transforms all our human relationships" sets the basis for its case that the church's teaching on marriage should remain unchanged, but it ought to find new ways to remain in pastoral relationship with people in varying sorts of committed relationships other than marriage.
The report strongly supports the notion that Christians constitute "one body" and that that body - Christians and certainly Anglican Christians - throughout the world and overwhelmingly hold to the same doctrine, that marriage pertains to the relationship between one man and one woman, for life.
The bishop's report is essentially a rehash of the position taken at Lambeth 1998, but with some additional effort to fill out the ways in which the Church of England might better affirm what is good and true and beautiful in same-sex relationships.
For many of us the Bishops report was a disaster for the future of common cause between the Church of England and The Episcopal Church.
Fortunately because of the clergy vote the resolution to take note of the Bishops teaching failed.
Several groups in England brought this report down and have cause to continue the struggle and not loose hope. Across the pond I hope we too will take heart. England is not at rest on the matter, and the Spirit is still at work.
The defeat of the acceptance of the report was the work of new group, formed of two major groups working for full inclusion of LBGT persons in the Church - Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and Changing Attitudes UK. The group uses the title "One Body One Faith." You can read about the new name HERE.
But in that title the notion the Bishops put forth remains: There is one body, and one faith. In this they are not arguing with the bishops that there is one body, but rather with the form that one body takes. And they are not arguing that there is one faith, but rather with the form that faith takes.
I think both the Bishops and their worthy opponents are mistaken in the belief that Paul's writings assume a unity of either body or faith in the realms that constitute "this world."
The classic source for this notion of "One Body, One Faith," is Paul's remarks in Ephesians: "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:3-6) "One Body, One Faith" compresses Paul's full remarks, just as the Bishops notion that in the present moment the One Body is that of Christ compresses this world and that which is to come.
The claim that in Christ we are one body and one Spirit, and that we were called in one hope, in "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" is the well established source for the notion, perhaps doctrine, that there is a unity between our identity as Christians and our transformation as part of the "new creation" in Christ.
The problem with this however, is that we are not, quite empirically, One. Christians are many because our cultures, times, societies, languages, and even our beliefs do indeed differ. We are not of one mind on very many things having to do with the faith. In this world "One" is far from certain.
The "One" is real, but its reality is not about the churches as they are on the anvil of history, but about the church as a spiritual entity. "There is one body, and one spirit," is a phrase that connects us to the transforming character of our engagement with Christ. It is not a connection that holds much weight in the world of social commerce.
Here there are customs of marriage (between one man and one woman) that are decidedly unrelated to the One body that is Christ, and which lack any reference to the One Spirit which is that same Christ working in us. There are so many as to make it unnecessary to list them.
The unity between the one body, and the One Spirit, and indeed the great affirmation of "one hope of our calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism" is real, but it is a spiritual reality.
It is easy to see how "One body, one faith" could be a rallying cry for those working for inclusion. But for that to work it must be shown that somehow the "one body" and the "one faith" are indeed - here and now - capable of inclusion such that all who profess the faith are in fact part of the one body.
Marriage is not such a spiritual reality, by virtue of its place in many cultures and languages. It is a reality in the world of social commerce and social intercourse.
I believe we are wrong to put the rules and expectations concerning marriage on the level of doctrine, raising it to the circle of those concerns considered central to the notion of "One faith." The churches (plural) rules concerning marriage are not a touchstone of unity and indeed cannot be, since marriage is not a Christian institution, but rather a community institution. It is time to stop thinking of correct marriage laws as central to the one faith.
Perhaps it is time for the Bishops and for the inclusive movement to stop talking about same-sex marriage as a doctrinal matter or something pertaining to the unity (or not) of the church. Rather they might accept the beginning point that regarding marriage there is not one body, but many, and the unity of faith is on a different level than unity of agreement concerning marriage.
The thirty-nine articles mention marriage only in reference to priests being able to marry. (Article 32) and Matrimony only once (in Article 25) where it is noted that marriage is not a Gospel sacrament. Perhaps we ought to take the 39 Articles at face value on this one. The Articles of Religion say nothing about the definition of marriage as a central doctrine of the church. Because it isn't.
The Synod declined to receive the report because the three houses (Bishops, Clergy, Laity) could not agree on doing so.
Near the beginning of the statement the bishops quote Paul in Galatians,
"Close to the heart of the mystery of human existence is the way that identity and relationship are inseparable from one another. For Christians, it is being in Christ that secures our true identity and transforms all our human relationships. As St Paul writes, “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me...”(Galatians 2:19 ff)."
The bishops statement that, "it is being in Christ that secures our true identity and transforms all our human relationships" sets the basis for its case that the church's teaching on marriage should remain unchanged, but it ought to find new ways to remain in pastoral relationship with people in varying sorts of committed relationships other than marriage.
The report strongly supports the notion that Christians constitute "one body" and that that body - Christians and certainly Anglican Christians - throughout the world and overwhelmingly hold to the same doctrine, that marriage pertains to the relationship between one man and one woman, for life.
The bishop's report is essentially a rehash of the position taken at Lambeth 1998, but with some additional effort to fill out the ways in which the Church of England might better affirm what is good and true and beautiful in same-sex relationships.
For many of us the Bishops report was a disaster for the future of common cause between the Church of England and The Episcopal Church.
Fortunately because of the clergy vote the resolution to take note of the Bishops teaching failed.
Several groups in England brought this report down and have cause to continue the struggle and not loose hope. Across the pond I hope we too will take heart. England is not at rest on the matter, and the Spirit is still at work.
The defeat of the acceptance of the report was the work of new group, formed of two major groups working for full inclusion of LBGT persons in the Church - Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and Changing Attitudes UK. The group uses the title "One Body One Faith." You can read about the new name HERE.
But in that title the notion the Bishops put forth remains: There is one body, and one faith. In this they are not arguing with the bishops that there is one body, but rather with the form that one body takes. And they are not arguing that there is one faith, but rather with the form that faith takes.
I think both the Bishops and their worthy opponents are mistaken in the belief that Paul's writings assume a unity of either body or faith in the realms that constitute "this world."
The classic source for this notion of "One Body, One Faith," is Paul's remarks in Ephesians: "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:3-6) "One Body, One Faith" compresses Paul's full remarks, just as the Bishops notion that in the present moment the One Body is that of Christ compresses this world and that which is to come.
The claim that in Christ we are one body and one Spirit, and that we were called in one hope, in "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" is the well established source for the notion, perhaps doctrine, that there is a unity between our identity as Christians and our transformation as part of the "new creation" in Christ.
The problem with this however, is that we are not, quite empirically, One. Christians are many because our cultures, times, societies, languages, and even our beliefs do indeed differ. We are not of one mind on very many things having to do with the faith. In this world "One" is far from certain.
The "One" is real, but its reality is not about the churches as they are on the anvil of history, but about the church as a spiritual entity. "There is one body, and one spirit," is a phrase that connects us to the transforming character of our engagement with Christ. It is not a connection that holds much weight in the world of social commerce.
Here there are customs of marriage (between one man and one woman) that are decidedly unrelated to the One body that is Christ, and which lack any reference to the One Spirit which is that same Christ working in us. There are so many as to make it unnecessary to list them.
The unity between the one body, and the One Spirit, and indeed the great affirmation of "one hope of our calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism" is real, but it is a spiritual reality.
It is easy to see how "One body, one faith" could be a rallying cry for those working for inclusion. But for that to work it must be shown that somehow the "one body" and the "one faith" are indeed - here and now - capable of inclusion such that all who profess the faith are in fact part of the one body.
Marriage is not such a spiritual reality, by virtue of its place in many cultures and languages. It is a reality in the world of social commerce and social intercourse.
I believe we are wrong to put the rules and expectations concerning marriage on the level of doctrine, raising it to the circle of those concerns considered central to the notion of "One faith." The churches (plural) rules concerning marriage are not a touchstone of unity and indeed cannot be, since marriage is not a Christian institution, but rather a community institution. It is time to stop thinking of correct marriage laws as central to the one faith.
Perhaps it is time for the Bishops and for the inclusive movement to stop talking about same-sex marriage as a doctrinal matter or something pertaining to the unity (or not) of the church. Rather they might accept the beginning point that regarding marriage there is not one body, but many, and the unity of faith is on a different level than unity of agreement concerning marriage.
The thirty-nine articles mention marriage only in reference to priests being able to marry. (Article 32) and Matrimony only once (in Article 25) where it is noted that marriage is not a Gospel sacrament. Perhaps we ought to take the 39 Articles at face value on this one. The Articles of Religion say nothing about the definition of marriage as a central doctrine of the church. Because it isn't.
6/10/2016
The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted: On not mucking about in your neighbor's garden.
The 4th section of the Lambeth Quadrilateral states that "The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples" is a core value in the ordering of the life of the church. After all these years of poking about as to what exactly that means, we at least know this: "The churches of the Anglican Communion are autonomous and free to make decisions about policy." We have this on good authority, namely that of the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop Josiah Idowu-Fearon, quoted by the BBC.
The bible purity crowd seems to think otherwise, but of course they can do so precisely because "the churches of the Anglican Communion are autonomous and free to make decisions about policy," including the decision that what they are deciding about is policy and not core doctrine. It is precisely this problem that lies at the center of the current madness in Anglican Communion life.
"Provinces" is the name given to the "Anglican Churches" which are national or regional synods (assemblies) having a common canon law, prayer book, body of bishops and other church leaders, etc. Calling them Provinces makes them appear to be extensions of a central ecclesastical state, in this case a world wide Anglican Church. But they are not. Calling them Provinces is a really bad idea. They are "autonomous and free" synodical bodies, united with one another by common history and extended "familial" connection. But that's it.
Which means that unity comes not by being part of the same organization - Provinces of a larger entity - but by being part of the same hope. If there is an Anglican Communion that lasts it is a gathering of Churches of hope - the hope that in Christ all will be well at the last. Prior to the last there will be great bouts of tribulation as this or that Church exercises the decision to make policy in carrying out the Gospel as they have received it, but in ways not agreed to by other churches.
When the Church of England and the Scotish Episcopal Church determined that bishops could be ordained for work outside their own church structures, they could exact some initial requirements about church life, but in the long run they had to let go of control. The bishops gathered in the Episcopal Church (USA), in Canada, in Scotland, and later in many new churches in many nations, all who "owed" their orders to the Church of England's synod of bishops, seldom had in their own canons any subservience to the Church of England or any other extra-synodical body. They are indeed, "autonomous and free."
So now we have some Churches that have joined together to form a more perfect union... one based on a form of biblical and historical certainty that belies the very foundation of the notion of Anglicanism, namely that polity, structure and common life are products of national or regional understandings as well as ancient professions of faith and order.
The GAFCON crowd, churches that came together and affirmed the Jerusalem Declaration, have in recent days determined that the Church of England, as well as the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, are apostate. In the most recent letter from the GAFCON leadership they had this to say about the Church of England.
"FCA UK & Ireland, formed at our initiative, continues to welcome and provide support for faithful Anglicans in the British Isles. We are particularly concerned about the Church of England and the drift of many from the Biblical faith. We do not regard the recent use of a Church of England building for a Muslim service as a minor aberration. These actions betray the gospel and discourage Christians who live among Muslims, especially those experiencing persecution.
We support Bishop John Ellison in resisting the unjust and uncharitable charges brought against him by the Bishop of Salisbury, and in view of the Great Commission, we note the sad irony that this former missionary bishop to South America now finds it necessary to defend himself for supporting missionary activity in his own country.
We continue to encourage and support the efforts of those working to restore the Church of England’s commitment to Biblical truth. Equally, we authenticate and support the work of those Anglicans who are boldly spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ and whose circumstances require operating outside the old, institutional structures.
We remain confident in the great good of gospel ministry, and we see what happens when actions impacting the Communion are taken without the priorities of the faith once delivered.
Wherever they are and whatever their circumstances, GAFCON continues to unite faithful Anglicans under a common confession of Christ’s Lordship and a desire to make disciples."
GAFCON provides the institutional cover for congregations and parishes who are wanting to leave the Anglican church of record (The Church of England, the Episcopal Church, etc) and establish a second Anglican entity (a regional church) claiming to be "true" Anglican body.
So the Church of England will now get to taste the bitter fruit of schism that has already occurred in the US.
And in an unfolding side-bar story, the Scottish Episcopal Church (SEC), in the midst of following its own internal council as a synod, is considering allowing clergy to bless same sex unions. The Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested that if they do so, they will be subject to the same sanctions that have taken place regarding inclusion of The Episcopal Church (TEC) church members in ecumenical conversations. At the same time GAFCON, seeing a new place to make incursions, all for the sake of biblical purity, is offering to take offended local parishes into their care.
The end of the matter is just this: To the extent that there are indeed canons, organizational structures, episcopal synods, and the like, they are formed and determined,by general Anglican Communion agreement, by the synodical structures of the several churches.
That parishes and dioceses might want to re-align is a reality. They are doing it. But in doing so they are not becoming new Anglican bodies, they are forming new churches, new synods. GAFCON is not the new Anglicanism. GAFCON is constituting a new super-provisional world wide body that will not put up with this "locally adapted" business.
So be it.
But the Church of England, and its Archbishop, are now party to the same game being played out in the US, in Canada, Scotland and other churches of the Anglican Communion. It is being taken for a ride.
And to the extent that England has become a multinational nation, its church, still English, will have finally to deal with the reality that there is no national church in England, but rather the Church of England in a nation that includes many church communities, some of which will try to pull from the CofE such members and dioceses as it can from the CofE itself.
That is why the Archbishop of Canterbury has to make up his mind. Does the CofE condone GAFCON's "new mission" as an Anglican device, or does it say, as TEC has said, that GAFCON is using the cover of a "pure" Anglicanism for purposes of usurpation and expansion? At the core is the issue of synodical governance, on a national or regional level.
The ABC was wrong to invite the GAFCON puppet, the Anglican Church of North America, into the gathering of Primates. He was wrong to push the Primate's sanctions as a possible outcome for Scotland. He needs to put a stop to this GAFCON purity initiative in England or see his own province reduced to being just another church in England, along with whatever GAFCON will call its church in England (perhaps the Anglican Church in England.)
The ABC cannot stop GAFCON from forming new churches in England, but he can make it clear that GAFCON's new church development is not Anglican, not the "pure and restored" Anglican community in England.
When the Anglican Communion bodies did not make it clear that incursions into Churches part of the Communion by other churches in the communion would not be condoned or in any way sanctioned, they made a dreadful mistake. The notion of "the historic Episcopate locally adapted" is based on national and regional synods, and the ancient understanding is this: you don't muck about in your neighbor's garden.
It is all coming home to roost. The mucking about is getting messier, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is not helping.
The bible purity crowd seems to think otherwise, but of course they can do so precisely because "the churches of the Anglican Communion are autonomous and free to make decisions about policy," including the decision that what they are deciding about is policy and not core doctrine. It is precisely this problem that lies at the center of the current madness in Anglican Communion life.
"Provinces" is the name given to the "Anglican Churches" which are national or regional synods (assemblies) having a common canon law, prayer book, body of bishops and other church leaders, etc. Calling them Provinces makes them appear to be extensions of a central ecclesastical state, in this case a world wide Anglican Church. But they are not. Calling them Provinces is a really bad idea. They are "autonomous and free" synodical bodies, united with one another by common history and extended "familial" connection. But that's it.
Which means that unity comes not by being part of the same organization - Provinces of a larger entity - but by being part of the same hope. If there is an Anglican Communion that lasts it is a gathering of Churches of hope - the hope that in Christ all will be well at the last. Prior to the last there will be great bouts of tribulation as this or that Church exercises the decision to make policy in carrying out the Gospel as they have received it, but in ways not agreed to by other churches.
When the Church of England and the Scotish Episcopal Church determined that bishops could be ordained for work outside their own church structures, they could exact some initial requirements about church life, but in the long run they had to let go of control. The bishops gathered in the Episcopal Church (USA), in Canada, in Scotland, and later in many new churches in many nations, all who "owed" their orders to the Church of England's synod of bishops, seldom had in their own canons any subservience to the Church of England or any other extra-synodical body. They are indeed, "autonomous and free."
So now we have some Churches that have joined together to form a more perfect union... one based on a form of biblical and historical certainty that belies the very foundation of the notion of Anglicanism, namely that polity, structure and common life are products of national or regional understandings as well as ancient professions of faith and order.
The GAFCON crowd, churches that came together and affirmed the Jerusalem Declaration, have in recent days determined that the Church of England, as well as the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, are apostate. In the most recent letter from the GAFCON leadership they had this to say about the Church of England.
"FCA UK & Ireland, formed at our initiative, continues to welcome and provide support for faithful Anglicans in the British Isles. We are particularly concerned about the Church of England and the drift of many from the Biblical faith. We do not regard the recent use of a Church of England building for a Muslim service as a minor aberration. These actions betray the gospel and discourage Christians who live among Muslims, especially those experiencing persecution.
We support Bishop John Ellison in resisting the unjust and uncharitable charges brought against him by the Bishop of Salisbury, and in view of the Great Commission, we note the sad irony that this former missionary bishop to South America now finds it necessary to defend himself for supporting missionary activity in his own country.
We continue to encourage and support the efforts of those working to restore the Church of England’s commitment to Biblical truth. Equally, we authenticate and support the work of those Anglicans who are boldly spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ and whose circumstances require operating outside the old, institutional structures.
We remain confident in the great good of gospel ministry, and we see what happens when actions impacting the Communion are taken without the priorities of the faith once delivered.
Wherever they are and whatever their circumstances, GAFCON continues to unite faithful Anglicans under a common confession of Christ’s Lordship and a desire to make disciples."
GAFCON provides the institutional cover for congregations and parishes who are wanting to leave the Anglican church of record (The Church of England, the Episcopal Church, etc) and establish a second Anglican entity (a regional church) claiming to be "true" Anglican body.
So the Church of England will now get to taste the bitter fruit of schism that has already occurred in the US.
And in an unfolding side-bar story, the Scottish Episcopal Church (SEC), in the midst of following its own internal council as a synod, is considering allowing clergy to bless same sex unions. The Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested that if they do so, they will be subject to the same sanctions that have taken place regarding inclusion of The Episcopal Church (TEC) church members in ecumenical conversations. At the same time GAFCON, seeing a new place to make incursions, all for the sake of biblical purity, is offering to take offended local parishes into their care.
The end of the matter is just this: To the extent that there are indeed canons, organizational structures, episcopal synods, and the like, they are formed and determined,by general Anglican Communion agreement, by the synodical structures of the several churches.
That parishes and dioceses might want to re-align is a reality. They are doing it. But in doing so they are not becoming new Anglican bodies, they are forming new churches, new synods. GAFCON is not the new Anglicanism. GAFCON is constituting a new super-provisional world wide body that will not put up with this "locally adapted" business.
So be it.
But the Church of England, and its Archbishop, are now party to the same game being played out in the US, in Canada, Scotland and other churches of the Anglican Communion. It is being taken for a ride.
And to the extent that England has become a multinational nation, its church, still English, will have finally to deal with the reality that there is no national church in England, but rather the Church of England in a nation that includes many church communities, some of which will try to pull from the CofE such members and dioceses as it can from the CofE itself.
That is why the Archbishop of Canterbury has to make up his mind. Does the CofE condone GAFCON's "new mission" as an Anglican device, or does it say, as TEC has said, that GAFCON is using the cover of a "pure" Anglicanism for purposes of usurpation and expansion? At the core is the issue of synodical governance, on a national or regional level.
The ABC was wrong to invite the GAFCON puppet, the Anglican Church of North America, into the gathering of Primates. He was wrong to push the Primate's sanctions as a possible outcome for Scotland. He needs to put a stop to this GAFCON purity initiative in England or see his own province reduced to being just another church in England, along with whatever GAFCON will call its church in England (perhaps the Anglican Church in England.)
The ABC cannot stop GAFCON from forming new churches in England, but he can make it clear that GAFCON's new church development is not Anglican, not the "pure and restored" Anglican community in England.
When the Anglican Communion bodies did not make it clear that incursions into Churches part of the Communion by other churches in the communion would not be condoned or in any way sanctioned, they made a dreadful mistake. The notion of "the historic Episcopate locally adapted" is based on national and regional synods, and the ancient understanding is this: you don't muck about in your neighbor's garden.
It is all coming home to roost. The mucking about is getting messier, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is not helping.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)