The GAFCON statements contain much with which I agree, and much with which as an Anglican Papalist I do not agree. These statements also contain statements with which I disagree as a Christian.
- 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.
- 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.
[Of course, Scripture must be interpreted in the light of Holy Tradition of the Church which carries the "DNA" of Christianity through all ages. One must also not forget the Anglican appeal to Right Reason. My main concern here is that this statement appears to be largely Evangelical in its statement.] - 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.
[As an Anglican Papalist, I recognise all of the Ecumenical Councils, though I must confess to wrestling with the contents of the 20th and 21st. Nonetheless, conformity to the Church of Rome bids me seek reconciliation of these councils to my Anglican understanding] - 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 recognise the Thirty-nine articles as playing an important part of Anglican History. I recognise them as describing the position of the Anglican Church as it was as a result of the Reformation. However, I do not recognise them as having any doctrinal authority over the position of the Anglican Church before the Reformation.] - 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.
- 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.
[True, but not authoritative] - 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.
[What is the "classic Anglican Ordinal"?] - 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. - 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.
[Provided that we ensure that we preach and live our lives in such a way as to present those ignorant of Christ with a well-informed and free choice as whether to accept Him or not.] - 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.
- 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.
[I worry here about the "pick-and-choose" nature of this statement. Although it does not explicitly say so, the way it is worded seems to imply that signatories to this statement would not recognise the orders of heterodox bishops. There is a problem with this approach: Katherine Jefferts-Schori is not a bishop because she is not the appropriate recipient of Holy Orders. Bishop Robinson, although heretical and sinful, must nonetheless be recognised as a bishop. However, his ministry is deficient until he repents of his heresy and his lifestyle. We still have to remember that we are all sinners and must always bear this in mind in this whole sorry affair.] - 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.
- 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.
[I see here a problem with rejecting authority. If this just presents as with another reason why we listen only to one person and not another just because they do not hold the orthodox faith, then we do close our ears to the voices of our brothers and sisters. If a heterodox bishop says that homosexual relationships may be physically expressed with the blessing of God, then he is wrong. If he says that we must worship Jesus Christ as Lord and God, then he is right. The Anglican way is to make careful and prayerful considerations of anything any bishop says, cutting out that which is clearly wrong, and affirming that which is clearly right. A heterodox bishop will speak much of which will be excised by an orthodox Anglican. A bishop has the right to be heard: he does not, however, have the right to have his word regarded as the word of God unless he be fully consonant with the Catholic Faith and fully submitted to orthodox belief. As an Anglican-Papalist, I believe that only the Pope enjoys this property under certain and specific conditions as laid down by the First Vatican Council. Other Anglicans cannot hold this doctrine, in which case they must make the decision themselves. Which bishops can be trusted to speak authoritatively?] - 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.
Some of these statements I have not commented on at all because I am in agreement with their spirit. But having watched Akinola set himself up as an Evangelical Pope and expressing his loathing of homosexuals in no uncertain manner, I worry that these statements were not drawn up in a spirit of love. Yes, there needs to be a clear separation between heterodox and orthodox. This needs to be done in a spirit of hope for future reconciliation. It must also happen in the light of the parable of the wheat and the tares. Wheat and tares cannot be separated without damage to the Church. There will be heterodox Christians within an orthodox church, and there will be orthodox Christians within an apostate church.
We are told that love does not insist on its own way. God loves us, therefore He permits us to make our own decisions and choices for which we must answer for ourselves. If we love Him then our way must always be subject to Him and to our neighbours. In 1998, the Lambeth Conference insisted on its own way and refused to hear the call of the African churches. Is it any wonder that now the Africans are doing the same thing now? The loss of love, the lack of desire to sit down and talk together and the breaking of Communion is a serious matter. If separation must occur, then it must occur with a view to ending that separation.
The Anglican Communion has created the case for Akinola and his followers by its own agenda and feebleness to attend to Christian precepts. It has no option but to address this issue itself, and it will not be easy. And Akinola himself must look very carefully at what he considers evil - he is in danger of cutting off a leg to treat an infected toe.
2 comments:
One of the problems of being an Anglican Papalist is that you are not quite one or the other. Anglicanism Can recognize the bishop of Rome as the patriarch of the West and first among equals therein, but the other claims which began to be made from the eleventh century are something which any true Christian must reject. No warrant for them in Scripture.
What worries me about this post is your attitude to Akinola who is only one primate among so many and not quite the evangelical which you imagine. Likewise you imagine that he hates those who are homosexual merely on the basis of their orientation while I and others are equally sure that without the addition of the homosexual acts, how would you be able to tell? Is someone who is merely effeminate to be treated as homosexual. The two most effeminate men I know both have marriage that have lasted for over fifty years and both have sired over ten children. So who knows? I wish I had as many sons.
As a Catholic but no papist I have to admit that i am not entirely pleased with GAFCON. It seems to me a very needed first step, but only that. The big test will come when it confronts the other primates on the destruction of apostolic succession which the pretended ordination of female bishops would mean. What will Anglicanism be worth if they only sacrament which we can convey validly is that of baptism?
I hope that you will not think it entirely rude of me if I believe that you need to make a decision between Rome and Anglicanism - and I mean Rome and Anglicanism, not Rome and Canterbury. The Anglican canon of One Canon, Two Testaments, Three Creeds, Four Councils and Five Centuries leave no room for the myth of Rome and the Petrine claims.
Canon Tallis:
"One of the problems of being an Anglican Papalist is that you are not quite one or the other. Anglicanism Can recognize the bishop of Rome as the patriarch of the West and first among equals therein, but the other claims which began to be made from the eleventh century are something which any true Christian must reject. No warrant for them in Scripture."
There is no warrant for Purgatory in Scripture (Romish doctrine or not), but it is perfectly inferable. Likewise, if we can hold the words of men in Scripture to be infallible, then it stands to reason that the words of men can still be infallible else, how can Holy Tradition be transmitted, how can translations of Scripture be transmitted, how could the first five/ seven/ twenty-one (delete whichever is applicable) councils have promulgated their doctrines and creeds?
If you are implying that I am not a true Christian because I, like millions of others, respect the Supremacy of the Pope and His person as Vicar of Christ, then perhaps you are making a judgement of me worthy of past Popes. I will let God be the judge of the veracity of my Christianity.
I believe that my reaction to ++Akinola, who does have my respect by the way, is based on fact. I seem to remember him jumping back in absolute horror when he had just been informed that he had just shaken the hand of a man whom he was told was gay. There was no reference to whether he practised, but the reaction certainly gave me the impression that it was the man's homosexuality per se which had caused the reaction. If this is a misrepresentation of a situation then I will happily alter my views.
"I hope that you will not think it entirely rude of me if I believe that you need to make a decision between Rome and Anglicanism - and I mean Rome and Anglicanism, not Rome and Canterbury. The Anglican canon of One Canon, Two Testaments, Three Creeds, Four Councils and Five Centuries leave no room for the myth of Rome and the Petrine claims."
I'm afraid that when someone tries to force me to make a decision, it usually bolsters my resolve to stay "neither one thing or the other" or, as I prefer to see it, "one thing and the other". I would have taken your comment rather more seriously had you not used the word "myth" to try and persuade me of my error. Before the 1530s, no-one would have seen this as a myth. After the 1530s we have a choice of "myths" Anglican Orders or Papal Supremacy. Again, my approach is "both...and..." resolving to hold in tension two apparently contradictory statements. I don't believe them to be contradictory, but I do certainly believe that the Reformation was the worst thing to happen to the Church regardless of who caused it. I have little time for those who wish to make the rent wider.
Post a Comment