Here is what I share with the 'almost-schismatic' ultra-conservatives:
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...
3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the [Nicene and Apostles] Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
4. ...
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...
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. ...
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...
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. ...
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.
Here are the parts I find over the top, specifically the red parts:
The Jerusalem Declaration
... solemnly declaring the following tenets of orthodoxy which underpin our Anglican identity.
2.... 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. ...[main trouble is in placing Athanasian creed alongside Nicene and Apostles; Episcopalians have long upheld the Nicene and Apostles creeds but not the Athanasian.]
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. [Which 39?]
8. ... [the main difficulty here is the assignment of marital ethics as traditionally understood to the level of first-order doctrine.]
11. ... 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.
13. We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. [Main difficulty in these two bullets is in using their own confessional standard of 'orthodoxy' as a standard of authentic orders and jurisdiction. This is very similar to Donatism.]
12 comments:
I can't see where you re called a heretic. The leadership of certain provinces are denounced, but not the members. If you watch the Jensen/Noll press briefing they make it claer that there are many faithful christians outside Gafcon, including in TEC
Obadiah,
According to the declaration, the full fourteen points are solemnly declared to be the "tenets of orthodoxy which underpin our Anglican identity."
At minimum, I do not agree with subscription to the Athanasian Creed, or the particular kind of "plain sense" biblical hermeneutic that the full fourteen points stipulate. As to the 39 Articles - which ones? The Episcopal Church dropped the Athanasian Creed from our version two centuries ago. Moreover, the Oxford divines weren't particular fond of the Articles either.
Yet by differing with these points, as I do, which are determined by GAFCON to be fundamental tenets of orthodoxy - I would thus be declared heterodox.
The thing is the exact way these fourteen points read, and the way they are to be adhered to exactly, is exactly the kind of confessional narrowing that Anglicanism has not done historically. It is why these folks are in fact antagonistic to what a central element of the Anglican ethos - which is the very lack of an exacting and mandatory formulation of orthodoxy.
Matt Kennedy, a pretty vocal supporter of GAFCON and all it stands for, is on record for calling me a heretic. In a comment exchange with Craig Uffman, Mr. Kennedy writes: "Greg Jones+ is a revisionist and a heretic and you collaborate with him. He is your collegue and you consider him your brother."
This is exactly the sort of thing which the GAFCON folks engage in now, and are building up for the future.
Yes, you would not be considered a Gafconite. No, that does not mean you are a heretic, or not a christian.
It simply means you would not meet the expectations of one particular part of christianity.
Speaking of the expectations of one particular part of Christianity, here's a sentence from an article about all of this in today's NY Times:
"The conservatives' statement said that although they acknowledged Canterbury’s historic position, they did not accept the idea 'that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury.'"
I find it fascinating that those who claim to be "traditionalists" are willing to downplay if not jettison the one "Instrument of Unity" that can genuinely claim to be the historic touchstone for what it means to be "Anglican."
Bryan,
The Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear that recognition of who is Anglican does not rest on his shoulders alone. In the constitution of the ACC we find a process of recognition that also involves the primates. It is possible the ABC could vote against the recognition of a new province in one of those meetings and lose the vote.
Centrist,
I have found a report of the briefing I pointed you towards in the "Church Times" which is more easily accessed than the video I watched.
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/blog_post.asp?id=58933
Asked if GAFCON had created a separate Church, to all intents and purposes, Dr Jensen said:”Does that lead to separate communions or denominations? No. The network is going to look a bit different, and clearly the Primates’s Council is going to operate as a new centre of authority within the Anglican Communion. But it doesn’t presume to have all authority.
Nor was it a “church within a church”: “I don’t like that expression”, Dr Jensen said. “because, first of all, I don’t think the Anglican Communion is a ‘Church’, and secondly, because I don’t think what we’ve created here is a Church.” A better parallel was with the Anglo-Catholic movement in the 19th century, or the Evangelical movement of the 18th. It was a “spiritual movement . . . a missionary movement.”
A key indication of whether or not this is a split will be continuing communion with those outside the new fellowship. Dr Jensen was adamant: in the Church of Australia, he said, “many of the other bishops would not sign this or be part of this movement. But am I out of fellowship with them? No. That would be a very serious thing for me, if any suggestion were made that I had somehow broken away from the Anglican Church of Australia. I certainly haven’t done so.”
"The network is going to look a bit different, and clearly the Primates’s Council is going to operate as a new centre of authority within the Anglican Communion. But it doesn’t presume to have all authority."
I fail to see how something concocted not by the Anglican Communion, but by a faction of it, can lay claim to be a "centre of authority" for the Communion at all.
Jensen has never stood for a strong central element in the Communion, as far as I can recall.
Obadiah,
You wrote:
"The Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear that recognition of who is Anglican does not rest on his shoulders alone. In the constitution of the ACC we find a process of recognition that also involves the primates. It is possible the ABC could vote against the recognition of a new province in one of those meetings and lose the vote."
Please site sources for all of this, with links (if available).
Bryan,
your post could take a major essay to answer i fear.
here are two places to start.
1) Rowan William's last advent letter http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2007/12/14/ACNS4354
which includes "The Communion is a voluntary association of provinces and dioceses; and so its unity depends not on a canon law that can be enforced but on the ability of each part of the family to recognise that other local churches have received the same faith from the apostles and are faithfully holding to it in loyalty to the One Lord incarnate who speaks in Scripture and bestows his grace in the sacraments. To put it in slightly different terms, local churches acknowledge the same 'constitutive elements' in one another. This means in turn that each local church receives from others and recognises in others the same good news and the same structure of ministry, and seeks to engage in mutual service for the sake of our common mission.
So a full relationship of communion will mean: "
(read on for two or so pages)
2) The Constitution of the ACC which is at anglicancommunion.org contains the provisions for adding to its membership schedule. This is how a province is recognised as belonging to the communion.
Thanks Obadiah.
My Friend,
Such a weak argument to perpetuate your advocacy of Sin by TEC.
The Athanian Creed (Still somewhat in use by Lutherans and a few scattered folks in Australia) was not rejected by edict...but rather by tradition...It just kind of went by the wayside....formally abandoned in Catholic Tradition in Vatican ll.
To make that a reason to find devisive fault with Gafcon does indeed say more about your character than your convictions...
My fellow Christian....What is at stake (the blatant Heresy of Leadership of TEC) with such trivial....is a pathetic ruse on your part....Now don't make your comments worse by continuing to lie about your real persuasions...Rather....
Let the new Province of North America Prosper....as it will....while TEC continues to dwindle and (Like the Ahtanian Creed)...Go away for lack of interest....
Post a Comment