Archbishop Ntagali’s Lenten Appeal to Pray for Uganda and the Anglican Communion

abp-stanley-ntagaliThe Archbishop of the Church of Uganda, The Most Rev. Stanley Ntagali, has issued this call to prayer for Uganda, and for the Anglican Communion. Here are two key quotes:

“Brothers and sisters in Christ, it is like we are back in 2003 where we continue to be betrayed by our leaders. The Primates voted to bring discipline to TEC and, yet, we now see that the leadership of the Anglican Communion does not have the will to follow through. This is another deep betrayal.” …

“There will be a GAFCON Primates Council meeting in Chile in April, and we will discuss how to continue advancing the mission of GAFCON as a renewal movement within the Anglican Communion. As I have stated previously, we are not leaving the Anglican Communion; we are the Anglican Communion. We uphold the Biblical and historic faith of Anglicans and have come together in fellowship with other Provinces and national fellowships that have made the same decision.”

Full text below:   Read more

Vacancy: ‘Director of Communications for the Anglican Communion’

anglican-communionThe Anglican Communion Secretariat in London is seeking to appoint a new Director of Communications.

Tasks include:

“Daily gathering and disseminating good news, without ignoring the divisions in the Communion” and

“Taking charge of communications at Primates’ Meetings, the Lambeth Conference and meetings of the Anglican Consultative Council and assembling an international communications team for the purpose”.

Interested? The closing date for applications is Noon, 15 January 2016.

Beware of Anglicans bearing gifts

The American Anglican Council’s Phil Ashey reflects on statements by the Anglican Communion Office’s Secretary General on the relationship of TEC to the Anglican Communion.

Canon Ashey writes:

“This is like an arsonist’s victim saying ‘What is surprising and heartening is that we are in conversation with the arsonist, and that even though our house has burned down the conversation has been a great learning experience for all of us.’

Secretary Kearon’s statement is important because it gives insight into the mind of those who are shaping the agenda for the upcoming Anglican Consultative Council meeting (ACC-15) in Auckland, New Zealand in October.”

– Read it all here.

Money, Sex, Indaba: Corrupting the Anglican Communion Listening Process

Anglican Communion Office logo“The Listening Process, also known as the ‘Continuing Indaba Project’, was announced last month at the Kingston, Jamaica meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council after a briefing by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Anglican Communion Office (ACO).

The staff of the ACO, under the direction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, announced that a $1.5 million gift was given to fund this project-a gift 2-3 times the size of any previous gift received by the Anglican Communion Office for its work… The delegates to the Anglican Consultative Council were told that the money was coming from a grant through the Satcher Health Leadership Institute at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

After subsequent questioning at press conferences, it turns out that the Satcher Institute is not the source of the $1.5 million dollars.

So where did the money come from?…”

–  Ralinda B. Gregor, writing for The American Anglican Council asks some uncomfortable questions of the Anglican Communion Office.

Apostasy and deception: Statement on ACC-14 from the Anglican Church League

Rev Dr Mark ThompsonStatement on the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Jamaica, from the President of the Anglican Church League, Rev. Dr. Mark Thompson:

“We have once again been shown how firmly apostasy and deception is embedded in the international structures of Anglicanism. There is no hope for the future there.”

The reports from the 14th Anglican Consultative Council meeting being held in Jamaica make for depressing reading. ‘Assume incompetence rather than malevolence’, the old saying goes. That is becoming harder and harder to do, even for the optimists amongst us.

The intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury at crucial points to serve the interests of TEC and its presiding bishop and to thwart the attempts to bring real accountability to bear on those who have abandoned the teaching of Scripture and are pursuing the property of faithful Anglicans through the courts, undermines any suggestion that he is providing genuine leadership at this crucial time. The activities of other officials from the Anglican Communion Office were even more openly serving the revisionist agenda.

We have once again been shown how firmly apostasy and deception is embedded in the international structures of Anglicanism. There is no hope for the future there. Generous-hearted faithful Anglicans have been willing to keep trying for a resolution through those structures and once again they have been betrayed at the highest level. The goodwill of faithful men and women has been presumed upon and taken as a sign of weakness or a lack of resolve. We need to pray for those who have been so seriously disillusioned this week.

The future of the gospel mission does not ultimately depend upon the structures of Anglicanism, of course. God’s determination to save men and women will be realised. All over the world men and women are being brought to saving faith in Jesus Christ and confident Christian discipleship in the light of all that he has done. The 14th Anglican Consultative Council meeting is ultimately irrelevant. The prayerful proclamation of Christ and his gospel continues despite the political machinations in Jamaica.

Gospel-minded men and women are banding together in the midst of this Anglican chaos. It is not easy and there are certainly significant hurdles that will need to be negotiated in the future. However, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans that emerged out of GAFCON is all the more important in the light of recent events. The international chaos has touched the lives of local congregations in other parts of the world. If we do not stand together at this crucial time, that struggle will become the personal experience of more and more faithful Anglicans.

I encourage all members of the ACL to pray for wisdom for the GAFCON primates and for the leaders of our own diocese. Real leadership often means isolation. We need to pray that these faithful men will continue to be prayerful, humble and courageous, dependent upon God’s Spirit and submitting all their thoughts and decisions to the scrutiny of God’s word. The ancient enemy of the gospel will be hard at work to turn us against each other. We should pray that God himself would preserve our unity and give us that proper sense of proportion to know what matters and what does not.

Yet let us learn the lesson from this most recent meeting of the ACC. We cannot afford to pin our hopes on ecclesiastical structures or even on individual leaders. The hope for a vibrant, robust, faithful Anglican witness to the gospel of Christ in this century rests in God and his work to bring about genuine repentance and faith in the lives of men and women.

Mark D Thompson
ACL President
Sydney, 9th May 2009

Greetings from the Anglican Church League, Sydney, to the new Province of North America

Dr Mark ThompsonTHE COUNCIL OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH LEAGUE SENDS GREETINGS IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST TO OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS GATHERED IN THE NEW PROVINCE OF NORTH AMERICA

1.   The ACL welcomes this new development while remaining deeply saddened by the circumstances which made it necessary. Faithful Anglicans have been marginalised within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada because of their determination to remain faithful to the Scriptures as expressed in the Creeds and the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion. We rejoice with these our brothers and sisters in this way forward out of the difficulties that have plagued them over the past five years and more.

2.   The Statement on the Global Anglican Future published in Jerusalem in June 2008 said ‘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.’  The ACL recognises the new Province of North America as fulfilling the vision of the GAFCON Primates’ Council.

3.   There can be no doubt about the authentic Anglican character of this new province. It contains Anglicans from a variety of traditions who, though different at significant points and committed to taking seriously those differences, share the same prior commitment to the supreme Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Scriptures in all matters of faith and life. They have proven themselves to be faithful men and women who embrace the classic Anglicanism of the Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, and more recently, the Jerusalem Declaration.

4.   It is a matter of profound regret that Lambeth 2008 and the other so-called Instruments of Communion (the Anglican Consultative Council, The Primates’ Meeting and the Archbishop of Canterbury) have failed to address the crisis with any urgency or meaningful action. Their delay has given further opportunity to those who are using all means possible to hinder the faithful gospel ministry of orthodox Anglican Christians in North America and beyond.

5.   We congratulate Bishop Bob Duncan on his election as Archbishop and Primate of the Province of North America. We pledge him and the members of the new Province our support and our prayers for the future. We call on all Anglicans around the world to join with us in these prayers and in congratulating the churches of North America for taking this bold but necessary step.

To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honour and glory and might forever and ever! (Rev. 5:13)

Mark D Thompson, President
Robert Tong, Chairman
On behalf of the Council of the Anglican Church League
3 December 2008

(ACL President, Dr. Mark Thompson, pictured.)

The Anglican Debacle: Roots and Patterns

– by Dr. Mark Thompson

No Golden Age

Dr. Mark ThompsonThe first thing to note about the crisis the Anglican Communion is facing today is that it has been coming for a very long time.

I remember almost twenty years ago reading an article by Robert Doyle in The Briefing entitled ‘No Golden Age’.1 (It’s shocking that it is actually so long ago!) The gist of the article was that the idea of a golden age of Anglicanism, in which biblical patterns of doctrine and practice were accepted by the majority, is nothing but an illusion. Biblical Christianity has always struggled under the Anglican umbrella. At some times it did better than at others, but there was never a time when evangelical Anglicanism, even of the more formal prayer book kind, was uniformly accepted or endorsed by the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer were, after all, burnt at the stake with the consent of most of the rest of the bishops in Mary’s church.

The Puritans who stayed within the Church of England suffered at the hands of Elizabeth I, and William Laud and others made life increasingly difficult for them after Elizabeth’s death. The re-establishment of the Church of England following the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 was never a determined return to the Reformed evangelical version of Archbishop Cranmer, but a compromise designed to exclude anything that resembled Puritanism. Wesley was hunted out of the established church. Whitfield had to preach in the open air when pulpits were closed to him.

However, the real seeds of the problem we now face lie in the nineteenth century. John Henry Newman’s infamous Tract 90, published in 1841, encouraged Anglicans to read the Thirty-nine Articles as a Catholic document.2 In this way he opened the door to the possibility that you might publicly assent to the Articles while reinterpreting them to say what you wanted them to say. What he did in the interests of a more Catholic version of Anglicanism others would do in the interests of a more liberal version before very long. As one scholar put it, ‘whether he intended to or not, he taught us to lie’.

Later in the century liberal approaches to the Bible and Christian doctrine were introduced into Anglican thought through men like Samuel Taylor Coleridge (whose Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit was published in 1840 though it had most likely been circulating privately before then) and two collections of essays: Essays and Reviews published in 1860 and Lux Mundi published in 1889. By the end of the nineteenth century, liberal Anglo-Catholicism was the dominant form of Anglicanism in Britain and elsewhere (with one or two significant exceptions).

So it is not simply that a couple of rash actions in the past five years or even the last fifty years have undermined what was a pretty well-functioning institution prior to that. Evangelical Anglicans have struggled in a hostile environment within the denomination for a very long time. Sometimes their ministry has flourished, despite the hostility of the hierarchy. Whitfield, Simeon, Ryle, Stott, Packer, Lucas — God has raised up many Anglican evangelical leaders in England and elsewhere.3 But their faithful ministry has always involved struggle within the denomination.

That background might lead you to ask, ‘So what’s changed now?’ If the denomination has long been compromised in these ways, and evangelicals have always struggled within it, why are we arguing that we have now reached a moment of crisis where decisive action needs to be taken? What is different about what’s happening at the moment?

The Five New Elements

I want to suggest that there are five features of what has been happening in the last fifty years or so that have brought this current crisis to a head.

1. The first is an increasing number of public challenges to orthodox doctrine grounded in plain biblical teaching by serving bishops and other leaders in the Anglican Communion. It really is simply a matter of historical record that the last fifty years or so have witnessed an increasingly virulent attack upon biblical truth and biblical morality led by those who should have been guarding both. There had, of course, been a long history of such an attack from within the universities and colleges. Academic liberal theology had been flexing its muscles for over a century. Yet in the nineteenth and early twentieth century serving bishops within the Anglican communion had mostly been rather guarded in their public comments and made no attempt to change the teaching of the denomination in any official way.

Although it might not have been the first instance of this, we might start with the publication, in 1963 of John A. T. Robinson’s book Honest to God.4 At the time he was the Bishop of Woolwich. In that book he questioned the doctrine of God and many other elements of classic Anglican teaching. And this was the new thing: that a serving bishop should mount a challenge to the doctrine of the articles and the teaching of the Bible in such a public and unashamed way.

Even before his consecration as Bishop of Newark in 1976, John Shelby Spong, an admirer of J. A. T. Robinson, had been writing controversial books. In fact his controversial views would eventually lead to charges of heresy, which were dismissed in 1987. In 1986 he published Beyond Moralism: A Contemporary View of the Ten Commandments. Two years later he wrote Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality. A year later he openly and knowingly ordained a practicing homosexual man. He has denied the uniqueness of Christ as the only saviour of the world, and the authority of the Scriptures to determine Christian doctrine and Christian practice. In 2001 he published his autobiography: Here I Stand: My Struggle for a Christianity of Integrity, Love and Equality.5 In it he appended ‘Twelve Theses for Christianity in the Twenty-first century’ which begin with the breathtaking statement, ‘Theism as a way of defining God, is dead’.

In 1984, the then bishop of Durham, David Jenkins, gained notoriety by commenting in a BBC interview that the belief that Jesus was raised bodily from the grave was ridiculous, an infantile preoccupation with ‘a conjuring trick with bones’. His comments were regarded as controversial and he has argued they were taken out of context, but on any account is hard to reconcile them with the words of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 — ‘Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, he was buried, he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve’ (vv. 3–5).

In 1995 the then bishop of Oxford, Richard Harries, defended his cathedral’s invitation to a practicing Muslim to preach the university sermon on the BBC’s ‘Thought for the Day’. He quoted Jesus’ words ‘Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called sons of God’ and then went on to deduce that since the Muslim concerned was working for peace in his own country he not only came under the blessing of Jesus, but shared the title Son of God with him. When challenged about the uniqueness of Jesus on the basis of John 14:6 he wrote ‘to suggest that Jesus actually said those words is to deny 150 years of scholarship in the Gospel of John.6

Michael Ingham, the present day Bishop of New Westminster in the Church of Canada was interviewed by the Ottawa Citizen in September 1997. In that interview he insisted, ‘It’s time for Christians to drop the idea that Christ is the one sure way to salvation’.7 He developed these ideas in his book of the same year, Mansions of the Spirit: The Gospel in a Multifaith World.8

Outlandish statements by bishops of the Anglican Communion, undermining the teaching of Scripture and the doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion are only barely newsworthy these days. They seem to come with such regularity and disdain for anyone who disagrees with them that only rarely do they provoke controversy. Instead, it’s the orthodox who are the source of scandal as far as the secular press is concerned. Statements of orthodox Anglican doctrine are often ridiculed and then dismissed.

2. The second feature we should mention is the redefinition of the gospel that has occurred in some parts of the Anglican Communion. It is increasingly clear that the gospel of salvation by the cross and resurrection of Jesus, with its call to faith and repentance has been replaced in some quarters by a liberal gospel of universal reconciliation, what some call ‘the gospel of inclusion’.9 It is vitally important to recognise that this is what has happened. It explains why the hierarchy in the American and Canadian churches won’t let go of their advocacy of homosexuality, for instance. The full inclusion of practicing homosexuals into the life and ministry of the churches is a gospel issue as far as they are concerned. As one website put it last year, under the heading ‘Drenched in Grace: Anglicans, Inclusion and the Gospel’ —

More than at any time in the recent past, those who seek to offer an open, inclusive and welcoming Gospel within the Anglican Communion are facing great challenges. Now more than ever we need to be equipped with the theological and ecclesiastical resources which mean that we can with confidence affirm that the Gospel of justice, inclusion and peace we try to communicate is scriptural, rational and central to Anglican tradition.10

No one must be excluded from the Christian table, these people insist, no matter what they believe or what life choices they have made. Love must triumph over all so that no one is any longer considered ‘unclean’ (with obvious allusions to Acts 10). Exclusion from fellowship or responsibility with the churches on any grounds is interpreted as an act of discrimination, an issue of social injustice which must be overthrown.

Ashley Null, commenting on the consecration of Gene Robinson, a practicing homosexual man, as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003 put it this way:

The legislative leadership of the Episcopal Church, including a majority of the House of Bishops, believes that they have been called and therefore, inspired by the Holy Spirit to establish the guidelines by which the Bible is to be interpreted. And in keeping with their commitment to religious truth as an experience of the inherent oneness of all things, they have selected those biblical texts which talk about the inclusion of outcasts as the true definition of the Gospel of Christ. All other parts of Scripture are either interpreted so as to support this explanation of Christianity or rejected as no longer being applicable in our day.11

There have, of course, been alternative explanations of the gospel before. However, this redefinition has become a rallying point for a redefinition of Christianity which aggressively seeks to eliminate all other understandings. Its adherents are crusaders, and the battle for the acceptance of homosexual practice is simply the next battle in one long war to overcome prejudice and discrimination.12 The civil rights vigilantes of the 1960s have a new cause and a new justification.

3. The third feature that has made this a moment of crisis is the way attempts have been made to officially endorse teaching which is in direct conflict with the teaching of Scripture. This could be illustrated in a number of areas. We might focus on the defeat of a motion affirming the authority of Scripture on the floor of the General Synod of ECUSA in August 2003. Or we could think again about the refusal of the Australian General Synod even to allow a vote on a motion rejoicing in what God has done for us in the cross of Jesus just last year. However, because it is the catalyst for our immediate decisions, I will simply trace the official shift of position on homosexuality in the American and Canadian churches. Perhaps a time-line might be helpful.

The roots of this shift in thinking can be seen way back in the 1940s. However, in the last ten or eleven years the pace of the push to officially revise the church’s teaching on this issue has sped up. Now it is not just a matter of an individual bishop’s heretical opinion, either expressed in private or published for general consumption. This is the institution changing its official position.

4. The fourth feature we should mention is the way these developments have taken place in full knowledge and in open defiance of the objections of the rest of the Anglican Communion, most commonly on biblical grounds. Those involved were asked not to proceed. Carefully reasoned arguments explaining the teaching of Scripture were presented again and again. Letters were sent between bishops and primates. Phone calls were made. But so committed to the cause were the bishops of ECUSA and the bishop of New Westminster that they refused to listen and rejected all calls to turn back.

The repeated nature of the calls to turn back is very easily demonstrated.

In 1997, three years after Bishop Spong’s Koinonia Statement began to circulate throughout the Episcopal Church, the Second Anglican Encounter produced the Kuala Lumpur Statement, upholding the biblical teaching on human sexuality. A year later at the 1998 Lambeth Conference, after extensive discussion, Resolution 1.10 was passed, again affirming the biblical teaching on the subject. That same year ECUSA rejected the Kuala Lumpur Statement and the New Westminster synod voted to bless same sex unions.

In March 2001 the Primates of the Anglican Communion met in Kanuga, in North Carolina and called upon churches to avoid actions which might damage the credibility of mission, after identifying the theology and practice regarding human sexuality as a flash point. Within months the synod of New Westminster voted for the third time to bless same sex unions. A Global South Steering Committee visited New Westminster to investigate and in the end advised orthodox parishes to seek alternative episcopal oversight.

The Anglican Consultative Council got in on the act in September 2002, approving a motion urging dioceses and bishops to refrain from unilateral actions that would strain communion.

A month after the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in June 2003, a group of over sixty worldwide Anglican leaders warned the General Convention of ECUSA that a confirmation of Gene Robinson’s election would result in ECUSA having placed itself outside the boundaries of the Anglican Communion.14 Indignant at the interference, the General Convention confirmed Gene Robinson a month later (August 2003).

In October 2003 the Primates of the Anglican Communion released a statement following an emergency meeting in Lambeth Palace which included the observation that the consecration of Gene Robinson and the blessing of same-sex unions in Canada, if they should proceed, would ‘tear the fabric of our communion at the deepest level’.15 This meeting called for the protection of dissenting parishes and set up the Lambeth Commission to propose a way forward. Within a month Gene Robinson was consecrated in defiance of the rest of the Communion.

5. The fifth and final feature I want to highlight is for many people one of the most disturbing of all. It is the open persecution by the hierarchy of the Episcopal Church and the Bishop and Diocese of New Westminster (and indeed others) of all who dissent from their program of doctrinal and moral revision. In early 2003, as the situation in New Westminster was deteriorating, and following the encouragement of the Global South for parishes in dispute with the bishop to seek alternative episcopal oversight, Bishop Buckle of the Yukon offered to provide just that to the beleaguered parishes. In response, Bishop Ingham of New Westminster instigated charges against Bishop Buckle and the parishes seeking his oversight and before long the offer was withdrawn.16

Just over a week ago the same Bishop of New Westminster wrote to Professor Jim Packer, author of numerous books including the classic Knowing God, and David Short, the Rector of St Johns Shaughnessy following their vote (along with their church) to stay within the Anglican Communion yet seek the oversight of a faithful bishop, the Bishop of the Southern Cone. The letter charged them with a relatively new ecclesiastical offence, ‘Presumption of abandonment of Communion’ and threatened to remove their ‘spiritual authority as a minister of Word and Sacraments conferred in ordination’.17 The bishop’s supporters have protested that this action is entirely legal and in accord with the constitution of the denomination. However, these measures are devices which the liberal establishment has created with this one purpose in mind: to punish anyone who object to their practice and who seeks a way of remaining true to biblical teaching and Anglican doctrine when the denomination itself has abandoned it.

There are many other horror stories. The new presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, began suing those who opposed this program almost as soon as she was elected to the position. To date the dioceses of Fort Worth and Quincy and more recently the bishop and diocese of San Joaquin have had legal action taken against them.18 The denomination is suing these churches for their property, seeking to depose those who speak out. The legal action may well be protracted. Some have resigned because they do not have the financial resources to resist the revisionists in the courts. Yet the opposition is not going away.

Individual parishes are being targeted by bishops with the revisionist agenda. ‘The Connecticut Six’ are a group of six clergy and parishes who have opposed the diocesan bishop on the issue of support for Gene Robinson the acceptance of homosexuality more generally. Ministers have been unceremonially deposed, church vestry meetings declared illegal, church officers sacked, and in some extreme cases a diocese has moved in at night to change the locks and so prevent the dissenting ministers and congregations from having use of their church buildings.19

Despite repeated calls from many quarters to respect those who disagree with them and to seek ways to provide alternative oversight where this is requested, the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church and others in the house of bishops have pursued a program of retaliation and persecution of the orthodox in their dioceses. It is not too much to say that ecclesiastical bullying of the orthodox has reached epidemic proportions in The Episcopal Church, in Canada, and in other places as well.

Those of you who follow the websites will no doubt know of many more instances. Friends of mine in the UK have been called in and threatened by their bishop in response to votes of no confidence following the appointment of Jeffrey John and Dean of St Albans. Jeffrey John has since publicly ridiculed the idea of penal substitutionary atonement.

It is true that in the recent round of invitations to the Lambeth Conference this July, the bishop of New Hampshire was not included. This has been greeted with protest from the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops. But the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church is still invited, although she supports Gene Robinson and has acted in this unconscionable way towards orthodox bishops, dioceses, clergy and parishes in the USA. Those who took part in the consecration of Gene Robinson are still invited. Those who engineered Jeffrey John’s appointment as Dean of St Albans are still invited. Bishops within the Canadian church are still invited.

The parishes and Christian ministers who are under attack have been left out to dry by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He appointed Peter Carnley, the retired Archbishop of Perth who is no friend of evangelical Anglicans, to chair the panel of reference established to consider their cases. As was to be expected, nothing has happened. The legal cases are still proceeding. The confiscated property remains in the hands of the heretical institution.

Conclusion

The crisis we face at the moment has a different character to the background struggle that evangelical Anglicans have long endured. These five factors have taken us further down the road of denominational apostasy than we have ever been before. The embrace of teaching and practice which is directly opposed to the teaching of Scripture is now being institutionalised in a new way. And it is being done in the face of careful, godly, biblical calls to stop. What’s more, those who are making that call are being recast as the villains and every effort is being made to disenfranchise them and remove them from the Communion.

That’s what’s different now. That’s why we need to act.

___________________

Footnotes:

  1. R. C. Doyle, ‘No Golden Age’, The Briefing 22 (April 1989), pp. 1–6.
  2. ‘It is a duty which we owe both to the Catholic Church and to our own, to take our reformed confessions in the most Catholic sense they will admit: We have no duties towards their framers.’ See John Henry Newman, Apologia pro Vita Sua (repr. London, 1965), p. 197.
  3. In Sydney we can rejoice in the inheritance we have received from men like Frederick Barker, Nathaniel Jones, Howard Mowll, Broughton Knox, Marcus Loane and Donald Robinson.
  4. J. A. T. Robinson, Honest to God (London: SCM, 1963).
  5. J. S. Spong, Here I Stand: My Struggle for a Christianity of Integrity, Love and Equality (San Francisco: Harper, 2000).
  6. Private correspondence to the speaker, 4 June 1995.
  7. Ottawa Citizen, 26 September 1997.
  8. M. Ingham, Mansions of the Spirit: The Gospel in a Multifaith World (Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 1997).
  9. C. Pearson, The Gospel of Inclusion: Reaching Beyond Religious Fundamentalism to the True Love of God (Azusa Press, 2007).
  10. www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002141.html accessed 13/3/08. An interesting article by Philip Turner critiquing this redefinition of the gospel can be found at www.goodnewsmag.org/JulyAugust/ja06turner.htm Arguably these are simply catching up with the observation of Ashley Null in a lecture entitled ‘From Thomas Cranmer to Gene Robinson: Repentance and Inclusion in Anglican Theology’ delivered on 16 July 2004 in Grace Anglican Chapel, Rochester in which he argued that the centrality of repentance within Anglican faith and practice was being replaced by the theology of inclusion
  11. A. Null, ‘Understanding the Contemporary Episcopal Church’, posted at http://listserv.episcopalian.org/wa.exe?A2=ind0312b&L=virtuosity&H=1&P=1493.
  12. John Spong’s autobiography makes this identification explicit.
  13. The interview was published in the UK Telegraph on 2 June 2002.
  14. the statement has since been removed from the Anglican Communion website – its url was anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/35/00/acns3522.html.
  15. The communiqué can be found at http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2003/10/16/ACNS3633
  16. Details can be found at listserv.episcopalian.org/wa.exe?A2=ind0311b&L=virtuosity&H=1&P=1397
  17. See www.anglicanessentials.ca/wordpress/index.php/2008/02/29/ji-packer-threatened-with-suspension
  18. Details can be found on the diocesan websites: www.fwepiscopal.org/index1.php www.dioceseofquincy.org http://sanjoaquin.anglican.org.
  19. Statement from the Connecticut Six can be found at www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1412016/posts

________________

This paper was presented by ACL President, The Rev. Dr. Mark Thompson, at the Sydney ‘Lambeth Decision Briefing’, St. Andrew’s Cathedral, Sydney, Friday 14th March 2008.

A Crisis in Koinonia: Biblical Perspectives for Anglicans

by David Short, Rector of St. John’s Shaughnessy in Vancouver.
(First published in May 2004.)

___________________

Dear Friends,

I am writing as a priest in the diocese of New Westminster which has been in crisis for more than two years. I have worked in this diocese in Vancouver for more than 10 years, after being ordained in Australia, and am rector of one of the protesting parishes of the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW).

David ShortThe crisis is, of course, much wider than our diocese, and much deeper than many are willing to admit. We have been very grateful for your prayers and support, often risking your own reputation for the gospel.

This critical time has very complex implications for the future and few seem able to agree on a way forward.

One of the most deeply troubling aspects of the present difficulties is that Scripture seems to have been marginalized. Much of the discussion at local and national levels has muted and even silenced the voice of God.

Yet God’s word has much to say on the vital issue of ‘communion.’

Over the past years we have been compelled to go back to the Scriptures because of the unprecedented nature of the crisis. I have been encouraged to write something of what we are learning. I am convinced that the best way for us to move forward is to go back to what God has revealed in his word.

I know you have many things to read. I ask your patience with this essay and offer it, praying that it might move our thinking back to God’s word for the good of the gospel and the glory of Christ.

With all joy and peace in believing,

David Short.

_______________

A CRISIS IN KOINONIA: BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR ANGLICANS

Newspaper articles, prophecies of doom, and synod resolutions aside, Jesus is still building his church.

For Anglicans, in a denomination that now sanctions same sex unions, this now means changes in the shape of our relationships so they might help rather than hinder the mission of Christ. The new oppressive liberal orthodoxy in North America must choose between using the current denominational structures as instruments of coercion, or through an act of love, allow a realignment of relationships within different structural patterns. If those in power choose the first course of action, biblically orthodox Anglicans will be forced to choose between the gospel and Anglican structures. Either way the Anglican communion as we know it will cease to exist. And all this in a denomination supposedly known for its tolerance of diversity, its generosity of spirit, its comprehensiveness.

Tolerance of diversity and comprehensiveness without boundaries are not virtues, however. They are vices. Jesus prayed for unity, but a unity apart from, or in opposition to, or founded on anything but the truth is at best meaningless and at worst wicked.

The term highly favored by Anglicans since 1851 to describe our mutual relationships as being more than merely structural is communion (from the New Testament Greek word koinonia). It is an enormously hard working horse, harnessed to several weighty theological wagons: employed in the apostles’ creed (‘I believe in… the communion of saints’); and to describe the Lord’s supper (holy communion); and, as well as the inner reality, fabric and superstructure of the world wide association of Anglican congregations (the global communion). The concept of communion has been pressed into heavier service over the last 20 years to describe the levels of disunity created by the ordination of women to the priesthood. The first resolution of the 1988 Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops recognized that differences of opinion on the consecration of women to the episcopate will result in ‘impaired’ communion. Its first resolution affirmed that the archbishop of Canterbury, in consultation with the primates, should create a commission to examine the issue under the rubric of ‘maintaining the highest possible degree of communion’ between provinces that differ. Resolution 18 on ‘The Anglican Communion: Identity and Authority’ refined this global consultation process. This new Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission, would ‘undertake as a matter of urgency a further exploration of the meaning and nature of communion; with particular reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, the unity and order of the Church, and the unity and community of humanity.’

The ensuing commission, called the Eames commission (named after the Most Revd Robert Eames, archbishop of Armagh) met five times and released its report in 1994. The work continued with a second commission which met at the Virginia Theological seminary and published its report in 1997: the Virginia report. There is now a third commission studying the meaning and maintenance of communion named the Sykes commission (after the Right Revd Professor Sykes). Both the Eames and the Virginia reports give considerable space to koinonia and its implications. Eames asserts that ‘The basis of the Christian Church is that spiritual reality of koinonia,’ 1 and the preface of the Virginia report affirms this: ‘At the heart and center of the Anglican pilgrimage lies the concept of communion.’ 2

Since 2002 the unilateral decisions and actions of one Canadian diocese and the General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the United States (ECUSA) to proceed with the blessing of same sex unions and to consecrate as bishop an openly practicing homosexual, have deeply wounded unity within Anglicanism and elevated the importance of understanding koinonia. The biblically orthodox primates of the global south, appalled by the arrogant disregard for the instruments of Anglican unity, 3 have sought to indicate the extremity of injury to their relationship with the offending bodies by variously declaring communion ‘impaired’ or ‘suspended’ or ‘broken’ or even ‘severed.’ This reveals the unprecedented damage to unity the blessing of same sex unions has inflicted — damage which is of such a different order than the ordination of women that the former archbishop of Canterbury Dr. George Carey, described the decision of the diocese of New Westminster in Canada as ‘schismatic’ a ‘clear undermining of the sanctity of marriage’ and ‘an ecumenical embarrassment’ as well. Archbishop Eames has been prevailed upon for a second time to chair an international commission of Anglican luminaries to cobble together a compromise structural solution. Others less sanguine are working for a global realignment based on what they discern to be the irreconcilable movement of two theological tectonic plates. My question concerns koinonia: can this horse do all the work we want it to, can it draw the various carts we assign to it? Are we in danger of crippling it? Do we have the right horse or is the horse a mule?

We need to turn to the New Testament to understand ‘communion’.

1. The New Testament Shape of Koinonia

The New Testament (NT) word for communion, koinonia and its cognates are translated in a variety of ways: ‘participation, fellowship, sharing, partakers, communion, partnership.’ Koinonia describes a particular kind of relationship between people created by their mutual fellowship with God through faith in Jesus Christ. There are three primary uses of koinonia in the NT, like a triangle which requires three sides, the three uses of koinonia must all be held together or you end up with something different: the horse becomes a mule.

a. Koinonia as fellowship with God

The first use of koinonia describes the living bond which unites Christians in the new life of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Although koinonia is used in a secular sense in the gospels, 4 it is a post-Easter reality. Both the Eames and Virginia reports are incorrect in suggesting that koinonia with God is an OT reality. 5 They also go further than the Scriptures in describing the inner relationships within the Trinity in terms of koinonia. What the writers of the epistles do assert is that through faith in the Jesus Christ revealed in the gospel, Christian believers have koinonia with God. Indeed, we are explicitly told that we have fellowship with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The apostle John, writing in his first letter tells the readers that his purpose for writing is ‘so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.’ 6 (The italics are mine indicating where the koino– word appears in the original.) Peter uses the same term in 2 Peter 1:4 where those who have the promises of God ‘escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.’ When greeting the Corinthians the Apostle Paul states: ‘God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.’ 7 At the end of 2 Corinthians he prays: ‘The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.’ 8

This first use of koinonia is reflected in the remarkable way the NT writers speak of ‘having’ God. We are told that we ‘have’ the Father, 9 we ‘have’ the Son, 10 and that we ‘have’ the Holy Spirit. 11 This must not be taken to mean that we own God, but rather, that we participate in the real life of God through faith in the gospel. Koinonia is a basic NT description of the common relation Christians share with God, based on the irreducible content and shape of the common gospel—a common faith (Titus 1:4), a common salvation based on the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). It is in the first place a spiritual not a structural reality; one which is both smaller and larger than both congregations and denominations.

b. Koinonia as fellowship with others in God’s work

If the first use of koinonia in the NT is about participation in the person of God, the second is about participation in the activity of God in the world. Koinonia is not for the private enjoyment of Christians, but draws us into a common fellowship with God, a common faith, a common gospel, a common salvation, and this is inexorably expressed through the whole structure and pattern of life lived in obedience to Christ. The fundamental dynamic of having our lives conformed to the shape of Jesus Christ through suffering and glory is an expression of koinonia. The Apostle Paul writes that he wants to know Christ ‘and the power of his resurrection,’ and to ‘share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death.’ 12 To the Corinthians he states ‘as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort.’ 13 It is the privilege of every believer to ‘have communion in Christ’s sufferings’ that we ‘may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.’ 14

Paul reveals how koinonia operates through the active engagement in Christian care and mutual gospel ministry. The Philippians had sent Epaphroditus to Paul in Rome with financial gifts and assurances of their prayers. In his subsequent letter, Paul told them that he was ‘thankful for your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now . . . for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.’ (Phil. 1:5, 7). Having communion in the gospel is more than just sharing the same ‘faith outlook,’ or approving the same gospel. It means actively collaborating for the proclamation and spread of the gospel. Koinonia is therefore not geographically confined. Paul was hundreds of miles away from the Christian community at Philippi, and yet the mutual effect of his suffering and their generosity, prayers and striving for the gospel is described in terms of koinonia. The koinonia which begins in our fellowship with God through Christ extends and multiplies with other believers as we seek the progress of the gospel. Even the financial support sent by the Philippians is called entering into ‘partnership with me in giving and receiving.’ (Phil. 4:15).

This second use of koinonia speaks of the mutual unity between believers expressed through Christian living and Christian mission. It binds us together in the gospel enterprise. Based on biblically revealed doctrine, faith and witness, the manifestation of koinonia is inclusionary, embracing and collaborating with other believers with diverse styles, gifts, contributions and backgrounds. It creates generosity of heart and hand to others in one’s fellowship and impels us to see beyond geographic, cultural, social, and tribal barriers. Gentiles now have communion in the riches of the gospel. 15 Paul refers to Titus as ‘my partner and fellow worker in your service,’ 16 and appeals to Philemon to receive Onesimus on the basis of koinonia. 17 Among the distinctive marks of the presence of the Holy Spirit in a Christian community in Acts is the attendant devotion to koinonia, 18 which functions both as a source and result of mission.

c. The boundaries of Koinonia

Recent Anglican statements have a fair grasp of the first two ways koinonia is used in the NT. However, there is a third use of the term which has been entirely ignored. The NT writers place definite boundaries and limitations on koinonia. Without them ‘communion’ is deformed, reduced to little more than a vague positive sentiment toward those who use the same words we do. Paul, for example, writing about the Lord’s Supper, makes it clear that there are certain actions and relations that are incompatible with communion. ‘The cup of blessing which we bless,’ he asks:

is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake (metecho) of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake (metecho) of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. (1 Cor. 10:16-21).

In this short passage, Paul uses koinonia four times along with the word ‘partake.’19 His point is plain. We can have communion with Christ, expressed in partaking of the bread and wine, and we can have communion with demons, but we cannot have both at the same time. It is not that it is merely against the apostle’s desire, it is something which ‘cannot’ take place.

In Ephesians 5 Paul uses the images of light and darkness to refer to life lived in submission to or in disobedience to the revelation of God. In the context of articulating the implications of the gospel for Christian sexual morality the apostle writes: ‘Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.’ 20 It is a double imperative: negatively to ‘not have communion’ with the works of darkness, and positively, to expose them. Similarly, when giving instructions regarding the implications of the gospel for church order in 1Timothy Paul says ‘Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure.’ 21

Having koinonia in another’s sins, or in the unfruitful works of darkness, is the exact opposite of having communion in the gospel. It is as though there are two competing missions: one which promotes the spread of the gospel and one which promotes the spread of sin and the works of darkness. There is no room for spiritual neutrality since the warnings about koinonia indicate that there is something deeper than just engaging in certain behaviors. To have koinonia, either in the gospel or in sin involves the reciprocity of relations, recognition and approval.

To put it another way, we cannot separate the horizontal and the vertical elements of koinonia. We either approve, recognize and promote the gospel or the works of darkness. Choosing the second makes the first impossible. This is why the apostle John warns that ‘if we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 22 He may well be echoing the teaching of Jesus. When Peter said at the last supper, ‘you shall never wash my feet,’ Jesus replied, ‘if I do not wash you, you have no part in me.’ 23

Koinonia with God entirely shapes our koinonia with others, and the conduct of our relations with others affects our communion with God. So precious is communion that it must be preserved and protected, not just from partnership with sin but from the effects of false teaching. ‘Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God,’ warns the apostle John, adding that ‘he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work.’ 24

He specifically instructs us how we should relate towards those who depart from Christ’s teaching. We cannot offer hospitality or even a platform for ministry to them, even though they claim to represent Christ. To do so, is to participate in their mission.

2. Summary and Implications

There are therefore three vital aspects to koinonia in the NT: fellowship with God, active fellowship with other believers in the work of God, and the avoidance fellowship with the works of darkness. The NT does not speak of levels of communion or of ‘the highest possible communion’ but simply of having or not having communion. It is shocking that both the Eames and Virginia reports entirely disregard the third use of koinonia. This is a serious flaw that generates a deformed koinonia, losing its distinctive Christian NT shape, reduced to a mysterious magic wand automatically uniting all who are under its wave whether they know it or like it or not. What the reports seem to fear above all else is a declaration by some Anglicans of being ‘out of communion’ with others. Hence Eames states that, ‘to take the step of declaring that communion is broken, or to describe the position as no longer being ‘in communion’, would be to do less that justice to the concept of communion as we now understand and experience it.’ 25

This is not the NT view of koinonia.

For biblically orthodox Anglicans, the decision to sanction any behavior the bible reveals to be contrary to God’s will, be it idolatry, adultery, theft or homosexual conduct, is not only an impediment to communion but to inheriting the kingdom of heaven. 26 There can be no ‘reception period’ as there was for the ordination of women, because blessing same sex unions is a first order issue. It denies, disfigures and falsifies the biblically revealed structure of the gospel. Biblical revisionists preach a different gospel, engage in a different mission and promote a competing koinonia.

Officially constitutionalizing what the NT teaches as sinful creates a division and disunity of considerable complexity within Anglicanism. Anglican polity by design and inclination traditionally gives wide room for disagreement. The ‘comprehensiveness’ embraces different views on non-essentials reflecting a right humility and charity. Clergy and congregations could faithfully follow Christ even with bishops and other congregations with whom they disagreed because the basis for belonging to the denomination was not the theological convictions of any individual bishop or congregation but the biblical faith enshrined in the creeds and expressed in the Book of Common Prayer. 27 However, when an official body, such as a diocese intentionally constitutionalises what Scripture describes as sin, it creates a fork in the road. It is no longer possible for biblically orthodox Anglicans, lay, ordained or consecrated, to have communion with that body, since the platform for belonging and associating has changed from the historic revealed faith to something which officially approves, recognizes and promotes sin. To remain in structural fellowship with any body that formally promotes and recognizes what God’s word condemns as sin is to have communion with the unfruitful works of darkness. In biblical terms, any body that promotes or legitimizes same sex unions has effectively removed itself from the fellowship of the gospel, and the catholic and apostolic faith.

This explains why African and Asian primates have declared communion ‘severed’ and why they are calling for a realignment. This has profound implications for global Anglicanism. I wish to highlight three.

a. Structures

Koinonia is largely responsible for generating denominations. Local congregations are the primary vehicle for expressing true koinonia, yet as Anglican theologian John Woodhouse writes: ‘The denomination (an association between churches) arises out of the Spirit of fellowship between believers beyond their own congregation, and its purpose is to express and facilitate the fellowship of the Spirit beyond the local congregation.’ 28

It is wise, necessary and helpful for associations of congregations to develop structures to foster their collaboration in the ministry of the gospel. The benefits are obvious; establishing a platform for mutual recognition and ministry, combining resources to train gospel ministers, deploying and resourcing mission enterprises, administering nurture, accountability and support. At best, structures support local congregations by promoting gospel initiative and facilitating koinonia.

Sadly, denominational structures that may originally have been created to protect and promote gospel ministry and koinonia gradually become mistaken for koinonia itself. The unity created by true communion and expressed through structures becomes confused. Then the structures themselves are seen as the basis for unity. Symptoms showing that this disease has begun to take hold include: a creeping clericalism, a fussy fastidiousness for ritual, a fervor for externals, a readiness to hinder gospel initiatives for the sake of organizational tranquility, a centralization of control and power, an identification of ‘church’ with the denomination or diocese, an elevation of tradition to challenge the word of God, an insistence on the independence of dioceses but the dependence of parishes, a gradual drawing of denominational distinctives into what is considered essential, and an understanding that parishes exist for the good of the diocese rather than the opposite. This reversal is clearly evident in the Eames report which claims of structures that ‘all the various elements of visible communion are gifts of the risen Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to the Church.’ 29

However, we must ask what happens when structures are being used to support what they were created to oppose, and to oppose what they were created to support? What if, instead of expressing and facilitating koinonia, they become instruments to coerce compliance in the works of darkness? What do biblically orthodox Anglicans do when their diocese and bishop promote, vote and proceed with something contrary to the revealed will of God? The apostle Paul tells us:

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 30

Clearly, if revisionist bishops and dioceses continue calling themselves ‘Anglican’ it is a delusion to describe the global Anglican body a ‘communion.’ It will be something else. Without a structural realignment Anglicanism will become a federation of irreconcilable congregations, or two or more competing communions. This will require overlapping or parallel jurisdiction by bishops, with neither jurisdiction fully able to recognize the legitimacy or integrity of the other. This has been loudly reviled as ‘schism.’ On the contrary. We should remember that old saying: ‘Schismaticus est qui separationem causat, non qui separat’ [The schismatic is the one who causes the separation, not the one who separates]. 31

It would be a mistake however to think that a structural solution will heal all our ills. At the risk of oversimplifying, what lies beneath the rift within Anglicanism are two different religions: two different Gods, two different views of the fall, sin, salvation, humanity, the cross of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit, the coming judgment and the mission of the church. Blessing same sex unions is one manifestation of a deeper conflict in the divergent movement of two irreconcilable theological tectonic plates. Liberals speak of the authority within Anglicanism in terms of the three legged stool: Scripture, tradition and reason (with the recent addition of experience as a fourth leg). This is ‘quite extraordinary folly,’ as Dr. Robert Crouse points out. ‘For Anglicans, as for Christians generally, the ultimate authority is the Word of God . . . What constitutes Anglicanism as a distinctive form of Christianity is a certain way of reading, understanding, and living in obedience to that Word.’ 32

For realignment to proceed there needs to be some willingness on both sides, as both sides stand to lose a great deal. It is vital for biblically orthodox Anglicans to receive international recognition and for congregations to retain the right to decide which communion they affiliate with and to own and dispose of the properties they have paid for and now steward. Biblically orthodox Anglicans need to beware of a narrow monochromatic uniformity (as if that were possible). Instead the must seek to build a generous, diverse platform that will serve the gospel by serving congregations and preserving NT koinonia. This entails contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints, with a generosity of spirit and the hospitality, grace and kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Some have used the language of a marital separation leading to divorce, with the consequent division of assets. This will be viciously opposed by those who have elevated structures to the place of the gospel. Regrettably, the same biblically revisionist bishops and bodies of authority in the USA and Canada who have demonstrated a zeal for altering fundamental doctrines, have also demonstrated an irresistible intransigence to any form of structural change. Litigation, the assertion of diocesan property rights, threats to clergy licenses by liberal bishops are thinly veiled exercises of coercive power, censorship and control. A realigned Anglicanism must reverse this centralization of control by empowering congregations to decide ministry succession, how and where ministers are trained, and for there to be an amicable property settlement. Certainly congregations cannot accept the spiritual oversight of a bishop who is out of communion with the catholic and apostolic faith.

b. Money

One of the most prominent expressions of koinonia in the NT is the willingness to share financial resources. The early church is marked by this fellowship in finances first within their congregation and then beyond. 33 Giving money is more than a calculated act of charity, it is a demonstration of spiritual partnership, of koinonia. Paul calls the collection of money for the saints in Jerusalem from Christians in Achaia and Macedonia ‘the koinonia,’ 34 explaining that ‘Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem; they were pleased to do it, and indeed they are in debt to them, for if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings.’ 35

There are two simple implications for biblically orthodox Anglicans.

The first is that they cannot contribute financially to bodies that approve the blessing of same sex unions. If same sex behavior is contrary to God’s will, and if we are warned not to have koinonia with the unfruitful works of darkness, and if contributing finances is a key expression of koinonia, it is impossible to see how funds given by orthodox congregations can be paid to revisionist bodies for revisionist projects.

The second implication is more difficult. The Anglican leaders who have been clearest and most outspoken for biblical orthodoxy are almost all from the global south. The differences in wealth and possessions between congregations in North America and those in Africa and Asia are staggering. Yet at great personal cost, in the face of tremendous opposition and suffering, bishops and primates from the global south have given extraordinary time and energy to love, care for, visit, defend, protect and inspire biblically orthodox Anglicans in North America. In return they have been vilified, dismissed and accused of being ignorant. They have demonstrated themselves cheerful victims of astonishing prejudice, discrimination and intolerance by biblically revisionist leaders in the USA and Canada. Their care is a demonstration of true koinonia. A realignment of Anglicanism will require biblically orthodox Anglicans in North America to submit to the wisdom of global south leaders and to give generous, sacrificial financial support.

c. Mission

The NT reveals that there is a living and indispensable link between koinonia and mission. The events of the last few years have exposed two different missions, two different koinonias under the umbrella of Anglicanism. The issue of the blessing of same sex unions is symptomatic of the two missions. Liberals believe it is a gospel issue for them to affirm, approve and consecrate same sex behavior as part of their mission: evangelicals believe it is a gospel issue for them to proclaim forgiveness and freedom in Christ from all sin, including homosexual conduct. Moral neutrality on issues which the Scripture reveals with clarity is cowardly, self-deceiving and disobedient. The desire to avoid conflict and confrontation is good and godly but not if it means calling evil good and good evil, putting darkness for light and light for darkness. 36

There are now two competing unities in Anglicanism: one regards Scripture as God’s sovereign word written, the other as the repository of the symbols of our faith; one names Christ as the unique and only savior of the world—meaning there is salvation in no-one else, the other sees Christ as the unique savior for them only. One sees mission primarily in terms of the proclamation of the gospel, of conversion to Christ from sin through repentance and faith, of lifelong growing discipleship, of presenting people mature in Christ for the last judgment. The other sees mission in terms of extending the church (meaning ‘denomination’), of making the world a better place, of providing religious services, of helping people connect with their inherent spirituality, of affirming people in their lifestyle preferences, of boldly reflecting the cultural zeitgeist of tolerance, pluralism and inclusivity. Liberals see the evangelical gospel as simplistic and fundamentalistic, evangelicals see the liberal gospel as compromising and antibiblical.

The two missions are irreconcilable. There is no basis for koinonia between them. You cannot throw a blanket of structural communion over two different gospels. In Matthew 28 the risen Jesus asserted that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to him. ‘Therefore,’ he went on, ‘go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’ 37 Mission involves making disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Holy Trinity. It demands relations with the community of believers through baptism and obedience to everything Jesus commanded.

For the sake of the gospel, for the sake of koinonia, it is time for Anglicans to realign. Jesus is still building his church.

David Short – May 2004.

___________________

Footnotes

1 The Eames Commission: The Official Reports (Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 1994). p. 21.

2 The Virginia Report: The Report of the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission (London: Partnership House, 1997).

3 There are four such ‘instruments:’ the Anglican Consultative Council, the global primates meeting, the Lambeth conferences for bishops from every Anglican province, and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

4 e.g. Luke 5:10.

5 Eames, p.14, Virginia, 2.3.

6 1 John 1:3.

7 1 Cor.1:9. The writer to the Hebrews uses a slightly weaker synonym for koinonia in Heb. 3:14 when he says: ‘For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end.’

8 2 Cor.13:14.

9 1 John 2:23, 2John 9.

10 1 John 5:12, 2John 9.

11 Jude 19, Rom. 8:9.

12 Phil. 3:10.

13 2 Cor. 1:7.

14 1 Pet. 4:13. See also Heb. 10:33, 1 Pet. 5:1, Rev. 1:9.

15 Rom. 11:17.

16 2 Cor. 8:23.

17 Philemon 17.

18 Acts 2:42.

19 Metecho — virtually synonymous with koinonia.

20 Eph. 5:11.

21 1 Tim. 5:22.

22 1 John 1:6,7.

23 John 13:8.

24 2 John 9-11, notice ‘have God.’

25 Eames, p. 23.

26 1 Cor. 6:9-11.

27 Perhaps more helpful is the Lambeth-Quadrilateral insisting on the Scriptures, the creeds, the apostolic ministry and the sacraments as the basis for unity.

28 John Woodhouse, ‘Christian Unity and Denominations’: Matthias Media website 2004.

29 Eames, p. 17.

30 1 Cor. 5:9-11.

31 J. C. Ryle, Charges and Addresses (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1978) p. 69. Quoted in J. I. Packer, Faithfulness and Holiness: The Witness of J. C. Ryle (Wheaton: Crossway, 2002) p. 50.

32 Dr. Robert Crouse, The Essence of Anglicanism; http://www.anglicanessentials.org/. Crouse adds, ‘nothing of it should be attributed, as is sometimes done, to Richard Hooker, who thinks quite otherwise.’

33 Acts 2:44, 4:32.

34 2 Cor. 9:13.

35 Rom. 15:26, 27.

36 Isa. 5:20.

37 Matt. 28:18-20.

GSFA Pastoral Letter Following The Church of England’s General Synod

This Pastoral Letter been released by the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches, 11 July 2024 –

“We request all the faithful in the GSFA to uphold our faithful brothers and sisters in the Church of England, bishops, clergy and laity, who have come together as ‘The Alliance’. We stand with them in the struggle that lies ahead as they seek to establish a new Province of the Church of England that will enable them to continue their witness to Jesus with integrity and freedom.”

Full letter below:

“Dear brothers & sisters who hold to the faith once delivered,

‘Looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.’ Hebrews 12:2

We request all the faithful in the GSFA to uphold our faithful brothers and sisters in the Church of England, bishops, clergy and laity, who have come together as ‘The Alliance’. We stand with them in the struggle that lies ahead as they seek to establish a new Province of the Church of England that will enable them to continue their witness to Jesus with integrity and freedom.

Despite the continued opposition of almost 50% of the Synod, the bishops of the Church of England have now succeeded in gaining support for services of blessing for same sex couples and the endorsement of a timetable to enable clergy to enter into same sex marriages.

With heavy hearts we see with increasing clarity that they will not be deterred from taking a path which is entirely contrary to the teaching of our Lord as held universally by the Christian Churches for two millennia and that they will continue regardless of the hurt and dismay suffered by faithful Churches of the Global South.

This latest development serves to illustrate the new reality that we felt compelled to articulate in the GSFA Ash Wednesday Statement of Feb 20th last year. The Church of England, has set itself to cement its departure from the historic faith by liturgical change. There can therefore now be no doubt that the Mother Church of the Communion has forfeited her leadership role in the global Communion and that the legacy ‘instruments of unity’, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other instruments over which he presides, (the Primates Meeting, the Lambeth Conference and the Anglican Consultative Council) are all compromised.

Yet in the great mercy of God there is hope and a future. Last month, the GSFA held its First Assembly in Egypt where we were able to adopt the ‘Cairo Covenant’ of 2019, creating a new covenanted ecclesial body within the Anglican Communion. As we stated in our Communique of 18th June 2024 (the same day on which Canterbury Cathedral announced that it would be offering prayers of blessing for same sex couples),

‘GSFA has become a spiritual home for all orthodox Anglicans. The GSFA Covenant of 2019 (also known as the Cairo covenant) is an historic development, a new instrument for the Anglican Communion to bring true unity in diversity which honours the supreme authority of Scripture.’

There is of course much work still to do in growing this new instrument. We are confident of more Provinces subscribing and we will be working hard to ensure that the ministry tracks (Economic Empowerment, Leadership & Ministerial Formation, and Missions Partnership) have substance to support Anglican mission and ministry around the world. The good news is that the GSFA has set itself to redefine the Communion with the adoption of the Cairo Covenant.

In a time of crisis with its temptation to compromise, my prayer is that we will be those who are ‘looking to Jesus’ before anyone or anything else, faithful to the ‘founder and perfecter of our faith’ and willing to endure.

The Most Rev Dr Justin Badi Arama
Archbishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church of South Sudan, and
GSFA Chair.”

– Source: GSFA.

Church Society Responds to The Bishop of Oxford

Rev. Dr. Lee Gatiss, Director of Church Society.

03 July 2024.

This important Response to the Bishop of Oxford has been released Church Society.

It’s worth quoting in full:

In June, the bishops of the Church of England told us what their way “forward” is on the vexed issues of same-sex marriage for clergy and the introduction of blessing services for people already in such relationships. Church Society responded to these proposals.

On 26th June, eleven bishops called on their colleagues to re-think their proposals, to do some actual doctrinal work, and bring back proposals that could be properly considered under the governance of the necessary canons.

That same day, The Alliance (which describes itself as “a broad coalition of leaders of networks across different traditions supported by more than 2,000 clergy within the Church of England”) released a public letter supporting those bishops “in their endeavours to remain faithful to the orthodox teaching of the Church of England.” They made it clear that “What is proposed is clearly indicative of ‘a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England in an essential matter,’” and expressed disappointment that the House of Bishops had reneged on their previous decision to follow the correct canonical processes. Further, they said that:

“If the further departure from the Church’s doctrine suggested by the Synod papers does go ahead, we will have no choice but rapidly to establish what would in effect be a new de facto “parallel Province” within the Church of England and to seek pastoral oversight from bishops who remain faithful to orthodox teaching on marriage and sexuality…. We are not leaving the Church of England or the Anglican Communion. We wish to stay loyal to the one holy catholic and apostolic Church throughout the world rather than be part of a schismatic move which departs from the teaching received and upheld not only by the vast majority of the Anglican Communion (representing around 75% of the Anglican Communion’s 80 million members), the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches but also the vast majority of other churches around the world.”

“We urge you,” they said, “even at this late stage, to honour your oaths as archbishops and bishops in England and to follow the lawful constitutional path to preserve the unity of the Church throughout the Anglican Communion.” The letter was signed by leaders from the Church Commissioners, General Synod, Archdeacons, New Wine, the HTB Network, the Evangelical Group on General Synod, the CEEC, ReNew, church planting networks, the Orthodox Female Clergy Group, Living Out, and Church Society. See their whole letter.

The Alliance also contains several bishops, and some Anglo-Catholic leaders, who wrote their own statement in support. 

Numbers

There has been a certain level of pushback to the Alliance letter, not least from the Bishop of Oxford who angrily rejects what they say and calls on everyone to “unite behind our compromise”.  In a rather undignified and aggressive response, he questions whether there really is support from 2000+ clergy for the Alliance stance, asking in a somewhat belittling way for the evidence of this. The Alliance, as many will know, has a website(https://alliancecofe.org/) and the first thing one is confronted with there is a “Join with us” button. That is where they have been able to gather signatures and church details for such a large group of clergy. I think the bishops who dismissively question the support the Alliance has would be taken aback by the breadth of this and the number of parishioners (including a very sizeable proportion of the under 18s in the entire Church of England) who are represented here. It is not for me to release such figures, but it is also not clear to me why the bishop feels the need to suggest that we are lying about the numbers who have expressed concern and joined with us.

The Bishop also disparagingly questions whether the Anglo-Catholic members of the Alliance (with whom I had good conversations at the last meeting of The Alliance, and with whom I am in regular touch) are really behind it. They themselves have released a statement about this for the avoidance of any doubt there.

The Bishop condescendingly suggests that those concerned about the Bishops’ proposals are really a very small number. That is not so. He says there is “literally no risk whatsoever that churches and ministers who support the Church’s current teaching would have to act against their conscience or depart from that doctrine.” But this is naive at best, or disingenuous, and neglects to tell us how we might obey Scripture’s very clear injunction to avoid those who introduce false teaching into the church. We all know that today’s compromise is tomorrow’s baseline for further changes. The Bishop even tells us what his end goal is: full acceptance of gay marriages in church.

Not a change of doctrine

The Bishop claims that “This is not a watershed moment”, and that introducing blessings for same-sex marriages and allowing clergy to marry their same-sex partners, is not (as the Canons state) a departure from or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter. It takes a huge amount of chutzpah to assert such a thing and expect to be taken seriously. The fact that people in authority are doing so, is one of the main reasons why there is a huge dearth of trust in our church at the moment. Institutional gaslighting is an abuse of power.

The Bishop of Oxford lecturing a group of concerned individuals for meeting in a closed room (it wasn’t actually, the door was never locked) is a bit rich given that the House of Bishops (which is a legislative body of the General Synod) routinely votes explicitly to close off all its discussions and doesn’t release any of the legal advice on which its revolutionary diktats to the rest of us are supposedly based.

Using power to arbitrarily push novel practices against long-established and repeated laws, is a form of tyranny — that our bishops would no doubt complain about if it were the Government or a foreign president doing it. So what is the long-established and repeated law here? What is our doctrine? Surely if these things are written down in constitutionally valid documents, then no temporary majority of bishops could simply override it in an attempted coup, as part of a bid for control? Surely they don’t think that whatever they want is Anglican doctrine, regardless of what is written down for us all to abide by?

Ten things can be said. Forgive the length and repetition here, but that is actually part of the point:

1. Canon Law says that our doctrine is defined by Scripture, the teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils which are accordance with Scripture, and the 39 Articles, Prayer Book, and Ordinal. There is literally zero support for blessing same-sex marriage or allowing clergy to be in such relationships, in those documents.

Article 20 indeed states that “The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” This is what the bishops are literally hell-bent on doing. 

Article 7  says that no Christian is free to disobey the moral commandments of God. Jesus declared all foods clean for us, but he did not declare all sexual practices clean; indeed he stated that sexual immorality (along with other sins) defiles us (Mark 7). Even schoolboys would hoot at the impudence of anyone who tried to claim Jesus meant to exclude same-sex relationships from his definition of sexual immorality. 

2. The Book of Common Prayer depicts marriage as between one man and one woman. It also says: “be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God’s Word doth allow are not joined together by God.”

How it can be asserted now that same-sex marriages are lawful and good according to God’s word, we are not told. Apparently we have to wait until the Faith and Order Commission can do some theology and let us know, or until we’ve had the compromise in place for a 3 year period of “discernment”. As we’ve already said, this is a curious thing. It is normally considered more prudent to discern whether something is right or wrong before you do it. When crossing the road it is wise to check there is no traffic before you step out. True, just heading onto the road and being struck by a car would help you discern it was not safe, but would it not be better to have looked for traffic first? Especially when others on the pavement are shouting: “Stop”!

3. Canon B30 says “The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.”

If the Church of England now also declares that marriage between two people of the same sex is fine, how on earth is that not a change of doctrine? Why does the law of non-contradiction not apply? Is this really what those who passed Canon B30 meant?

4. The motion passed overwhelmingly by General Synod in November 1987 states:

“This Synod affirms that the biblical and traditional teaching on chastity and fidelity in personal relationships is a response to, and expression of, God’s love for each one of us, and in particular affirms:

1. that sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which belongs properly within a permanent married relationship;

2. that fornication and adultery are sins against this ideal, and are to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion;

3. that homosexual genital acts also fall short of this ideal, and are likewise to be met with a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion;

4. that all Christians are called to be exemplary in all spheres of morality, and that holiness of life is particularly required of Christian leaders.”

How is LLF not a change of this doctrine? Surely to assert that what the bishops are suggesting is no big deal, requires such casuistry, such mental gymnastics, that it could almost be an Olympic sport.

5. The 1991 House of Bishops report Issues in Human Sexuality argues that what it calls a ‘homophile’ orientation and attraction could not be endorsed by the Church as:

“…a parallel and alternative form of human sexuality as complete within the terms of the created order as the heterosexual. The convergence of Scripture, Tradition and reasoned reflection on experience, even including the newly sympathetic and perceptive thinking of our own day, make it impossible for the Church to come with integrity to any other conclusion. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equally congruous with the observed order of creation or with the insights of revelation as the Church engages with these in the light of her pastoral ministry.”

How is LLF therefore not a change of doctrine? If it isn’t a change of doctrine, why are activists and bishops furiously trying to get rid of Issues in Human Sexuality?

6. Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference (of all bishops in the Anglican Communion) declares that the Conference: “in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage.” It also declares that the Conference “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.”

How can legitimising same sex unions by blessing them and allowing clergy to be in them, not be a change of doctrine at odds with the mind of the worldwide church?

7. The 1999 House of Bishops teaching document Marriage states that: “Marriage is a pattern that God has given in creation, deeply rooted in our social instincts, through which a man and a woman may learn love together over the course of their lives”, and that “Sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy belongs within marriage exclusively.”

Surely this is contradicted by what the bishops now propose? 

8. The Preface to the modern Common Worship marriage service marriage tells the congregation that: “Marriage is a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God. It is given that as man and woman grow together in love and trust, they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind, as Christ is united with his bride, the Church.”

If marriage is also for husband and husband, or wife and wife, surely Common Worship is wrong, and that would be a change of doctrine? You can see why intelligent people might be confused.

9. The 2005 House of Bishops Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships states:

“It has always been the position of the Church of England that marriage is a creation ordinance, a gift of God in creation and a means of his grace. Marriage, defined as a faithful, committed, permanent and legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman, is central to the stability and health of human society. It continues to provide the best context for the raising of children.”

“The Church of England’s teaching is classically summarised in The Book of Common Prayer, where the marriage service lists the causes for which marriage was ordained, namely: ‘for the procreation of children, …for a remedy against sin [and]…. for the mutual society, help, and comfort that the one ought to have of the other.”

“In the light of this understanding the Church of England teaches that ‘sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively’… Sexual relationships outside marriage, whether heterosexual or between people of the same sex, are regarded as falling short of God’s purposes for human beings.”

This teaching was reiterated (word for word) in the December 2019 Pastoral Statement on same-sex and opposite sex civil partnerships.

What is now being proposed is directly the opposite of that. Who could say it is not a change of doctrine, and keep a straight face?

10. Finally, the House of Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same-sex Marriage (2014) stated that the same principles should apply with same-sex marriages as with Civil Partnerships and that in consequence: “Services of blessing should not be provided. Clergy should respond pastorally and sensitively in other ways.” It also stated that “Getting married to someone of the same sex would, however, clearly be at variance with the teaching of the Church of England… it would not be appropriate conduct for someone in holy orders to enter into a same sex marriage.” 

How is it a “modest” change, to reverse this completely? How? We must be forgiven for being somewhat bemused. The Bishop of Oxford wants us to believe this is a modest step to bring things in line with what is actually happening. But it is actually a wholesale reversal of everything above. Besides, if it was a modest change as he suggests, and he really did care about preserving unity and avoiding schism, surely the most statesmanlike and pastoral response would be to not go ahead with the proposals causing all the problems. Anyone in ordinary parish ministry would certainly consider such a diplomatic course if they were pushing something so controversial against the established laws and the strong opposition of a sizeable number of their most active members.

In the light of all these doctrinal statements and repeated declarations, the only way that the Church of England could permit with integrity services of blessing for same-sex couples, including same-sex marriages for clergy  — would be to repudiate all the statements just listed above and declare that it now believes something else instead. Only in this way could the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi, that the Church of England prays as it believes, be maintained. Only in this way could anybody believe anything the bishops tell us. It would at least be honest.

Trying to openly overturn it all, honestly and clearly, would have some integrity, even if it would be seriously in error. But that’s clearly not what they want to do. They want to pretend that nothing has changed, and that the new proposals simply regularise what’s been happening for years anyway, according to the Bishop of Oxford, and which we have been “content” with, he astonishingly claims. Despite the fact that even a secular employment tribunal has recognised that the Church’s doctrine of marriage is clear and does exclude same-sex marriages for clergy (and therefore upheld the withholding of a license from a clergyman who entered into one). If clergy have been ordained and permitted to live outside the current guidelines listed above, it is the fault of those very bishops who are now trying to get us to accept all this as not a change of doctrine. We should not be coerced into passively accepting their past (and possibly deliberate) failures in disciplinary safeguarding, which is one of their core tasks as bishops. Who knows what other guidelines and doctrines they might fail or be failing to uphold. 

The world

Both GAFCON and The Global South Fellowship of Anglicans have repudiated the bishops’ proposals. Indeed, the GSFA said that it “deeply regrets the decision of the Church of England’s General Synod today, supporting the House of Bishops’ proposals to ‘bless’ Same Sex Unions – which goes against the overwhelming mind of the Anglican Communion.”

To claim as the Bishop of Oxford tries to that many provinces contain a variety of views or that there is no consensus, is tendentious in the extreme, and ignores the blatantly clear consensus of the vast majority of the Anglican world that what our bishops are doing is wrong. And this, the Global South says, “has now triggered a widespread loss of confidence” in the Church of England’s leadership of the Communion. It is very hard to resist a charge of western elitism, when one notes where all the pressure is coming from to liberalise on these matters. The snobbish, Anglo-centric, and dictatorial behaviour that my non-Western friends tell me they observed at recent Lambeth conferences and meetings of the Anglican Consultative Council is not reassuring.

Crisis, what crisis?

The Alliance letter is criticised by the Bishop of Oxford for “catasrophising language” because it talks of “incalculable damage to the structure, integrity and mission of the national church”. Only the most blinkered could fail to see that this is exactly what is happening because of LLF. According to the Church of England’s own figures, attendance is down 29% since 2015, ordinand numbers are down 40% since 2019, and most dioceses are now in a structural deficit position. Though obviously there are several factors at play here, the confusion and catastrophic loss of trust caused by LLF is certainly responsible for a great deal of this. One would have to be trapped in a deluded bubble not to see that. Major leaders and networks within the growing and thriving parts of the church have consistently and publicly expressed deep regret and concern at developments. The global Anglican Communion has even rejected the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

On what definition is this not a leadership crisis, of the most epic proportions? Surely the bishop needs to get his head out of the sand. It’s like the House of Bishops are trying to build a massive extension without planning permission, in the hope that everything will be alright once it’s up, fait accompli. But as Captain Tom’s family discovered recently, that isn’t always what happens.

The early church flourished in a time of confusion and persecution by being clear on the gospel, refuting heresy, and acting to counter it ecclesiologically where necessary, even if that seemed “irregular”. That’s the way forward here.

Schism?

The Bishop of Oxford labels The Alliance approach “a deep and disproportionate schism”. Schism is a heavily-loaded term that is too easily thrown about in the current debate. Some theology or history might be of assistance in helping to understand what it actually means. Obviously I would point to Fight Valiantly: Contending for the Faith against False Teaching in the Church if anyone wants to explore this whole area in detail. But there’s also Gerald Bray’s very useful book, Heresy, Schism, and Apostasy.

The Lutheran Confessions are very helpful on this. They say:

“The impiety and tyranny of bishops cause schism and discord. Therefore, if the bishops are heretics, or will not ordain suitable persons, the churches are in duty bound before God, according to divine law, to ordain for themselves pastors and ministers. Even though this is now called an irregularity or schism, it should be known that the godless doctrine and tyranny of bishops is chargeable with it. Paul commands that bishops who teach and defend a godless doctrine and godless services should be considered accursed (Galatians 1:7-9).”

Further, they add:

“The adversaries also quote Hebrews 13:17, ‘Obey your leaders.’ This passage requires obedience to the Gospel. It does not establish a dominion for the bishops apart from the Gospel. Neither should the bishops enact traditions contrary to the Gospel or interpret their traditions contrary to the Gospel. When they do this, obedience is prohibited, according to Galatians 1:9, ‘If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.’”

In addition, the Augsburg Confession says clearly that when bishops “teach or establish anything against the Gospel, then the congregations are forbidden by God’s command to obey them… The Canonical Laws also command this… And Augustine writes: ‘Neither must we submit to catholic bishops if they chance to err, or hold anything contrary to the canonical Scriptures of God.’ (Contra Petiliani Epistolam).”

The biblical book of Jude is quite clear where schism originates. “But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, ‘In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.’ These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.”

So if there is schism, it is caused by those who do not follow the Bible. It is emphatically notcaused by those who seek to uphold it and follow it and reject innovations. This must be especially the case where the teaching and practices being proposed are said by the Scriptures to exclude people from the kingdom of God, as is the case here (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3-7). Surely to redefine the sins mentioned here as things which are actually good and appropriate for Christians, would be the very definition of a salvation issue, one on which our eternal destiny turns? It would be, as Jude puts it, to “pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord” (Jude 4). 

The Bishop uncharitably accuses The Alliance of a lack of perspective and of neglecting “mercy, love and joy and the priority of gospel proclamation.” He and I would not agree on what the gospel is that we are proclaiming, because we preach different versions of Jesus. It is not Anglican to preach just the mercy, love, and joy bits of scripture and ignore these stark warnings. Indeed, the mercy, love, and joy spoken of in the Bible are always in the context of God’s holiness and judgment, and don’t make sense without those. He is merciful to sinners who repent. He loves those who turn back to him from rebellion. He gives joy to those who turn from their disordered desires and embrace him by faith alone. That’s the whole reason for “gospel proclamation” in the first place, to save us from our sin. Unless one believes that everybody is saved in the end anyway. Which I suspect many clergy and bishops actually do, quite contrary to what the Bible and the Articles say. That’s not an Anglican theology.

Tolerance of disagreement and error here would not be “wisely allowing a diversity of interpretations in a disputed area” as some might say, a sign of Anglicanism’s supposedly secure ability to embrace a diversity of views. It would not be spiritually loving or pastorally accommodating: it would be literally soul-destroying. We should no more tolerate this than we would tolerate a drop or two of poison in our afternoon tea. No-one with compassion for those caught in sin can simply affirm it unquestioningly without showing the better way — peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ who calls us to “Repent and believe.” With him there is forgiveness, a fresh start, and the power of the Spirit to enable us to live for him.

I have quoted this before, more than once, but it remains relevant: as the theologian John Calvin put it, “How can any one have the effrontery to expect that God will aid him in accomplishing desires at variance with his word? What God with his own lips pronounces cursed, never can be prosecuted with his blessing.” (Institutes 3.7.9).

So, no, bishop; we will not be uniting behind your compromise (even if it was more pleasantly and graciously presented). Instead, we will pray:

Almighty God,
you show to those who are in error the light of your truth,
that they may return to the way of righteousness:
grant to all those who are admitted into the fellowship of Christ’s religion,
that they may reject those things that are contrary to their profession,
and follow all such things as are agreeable to the same;
through our Lord Jesus Christ, who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.
Amen.*

 * The Church of England’s collect for the 2nd Sunday of Lent (Year C).

Dr Lee Gatiss is the Director of Church Society.

First published at Church Society, 3rd July 2024.

Statement from Lambeth Palace, 21 April 2023

“Responding to ‘The Kigali Commitment’ issued by GAFCON IV today, a spokesperson for Lambeth Palace said:

‘We note that The Kigali Commitment issued by GAFCON IV today makes many of the same points that have previously been made about the structures of the Anglican Communion. As the Archbishop of Canterbury has previously said, those structures are always able to change with the times – and have done so in the past. The Archbishop said at the recent Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Ghana (ACC-18) that no changes to the formal structures of the Anglican Communion can be made unless they are agreed upon by the Instruments of Communion.’ …” (emphasis added)

– Archbishop of Canterbury’s website.

And from the GAFCON IV Kigali Commitment, representing perhaps 85% of global Anglicans:

“Public statements by the Archbishop of Canterbury and other leaders of the Church of England in support of same-sex blessings are a betrayal of their ordination and consecration vows to banish error and to uphold and defend the truth taught in Scripture. …

We have no confidence that the Archbishop of Canterbury nor the other Instruments of Communion led by him (the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meetings) are able to provide a godly way forward that will be acceptable to those who are committed to the truthfulness, clarity, sufficiency and authority of Scripture. The Instruments of Communion have failed to maintain true communion based on the Word of God and shared faith in Christ.

All four Instruments propose that the way ahead for the Anglican Communion is to learn to walk together in ‘good disagreement’. However we reject the claim that two contradictory positions can both be valid in matters affecting salvation. We cannot ‘walk together’ in good disagreement with those who have deliberately chosen to walk away from the ‘faith once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3). The people of God ’walk in his ways’, ‘walk in the truth’, and ‘walk in the light’, all of which require that we do not walk in Christian fellowship with those in darkness (Deuteronomy 8:6; 2 John 4; 1 John 1:7).

Successive Archbishops of Canterbury have failed to guard the faith by inviting bishops to Lambeth who have embraced or promoted practices contrary to Scripture. This failure of church discipline has been compounded by the current Archbishop of Canterbury who has himself welcomed the provision of liturgical resources to bless these practices contrary to Scripture. This renders his leadership role in the Anglican Communion entirely indefensible. …” (emphasis added)

GSFA Primates statement: “the Church of England has… disqualified herself”

This statement has been released today by the Primates of The Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches:

Here are some key quotes from the statement  –

“…the Church of England has … disqualified herself from leading the Communion as the historic ‘Mother’ Church …

The GSFA is no longer able to recognise the present Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt Hon & Most Revd Justin Welby, as the “first among equals” Leader of the global Communion.  …

GSFA Primates will expeditiously meet, consult and work with other orthodox Primates in the Anglican Church across the nations to re-set the Communion on its biblical foundation …

We do not accept the view that we can still ‘walk together’ with the revisionist provinces …”.

Full statement below:

The Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches

PRESS STATEMENT

February 20, 2023

STATEMENT OF GSFA PRIMATES ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND’S DECISION REGARDING THE BLESSING OF SAME SEX UNIONS 

With great sorrow at the recent decision of the Church of England’s General Synod to legitimise and incorporate into the Church’s liturgy the blessing of same sex unions, ten Primates of the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA) met virtually on 13 Feb 2023 under the chairmanship of Archbishop Justin Badi (Chairman of GSFA & Primate of South Sudan) to discuss our response. 

The panel of Primates agreed on the following resolutions which it now commends to the orthodox provinces and dioceses who are part of her Fellowship for the respective Primate & Province to consider and deliberate on.

1.) As the Church of England has departed from the historic faith passed down from the Apostles by this innovation in the liturgies of the Church and her pastoral practice (contravening her own Canon A5), she has disqualified herself from leading the Communion as the historic “Mother” Church. Indeed, the Church of England has chosen to break communion with those provinces who remain faithful to the historic biblical faith expressed in the Anglican formularies (the 39 Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal and the Book of Homilies) and applied to the matter of marriage and sexuality in Lambeth Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference. 

2.) As much as the  GSFA Primates also want to keep the unity of the visible Church and the fabric of the Anglican Communion, our calling to be ‘a holy remnant’ does not allow us be “in communion” with those provinces that have departed from the historic faith and taken the path of false teaching. This breaks our hearts and we pray for the revisionist provinces to return to ‘the faith once delivered’ (Jude 3) and to us. 

3.) The GSFA is no longer able to recognise the present Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt Hon & Most Revd Justin Welby, as the “first among equals” Leader of the global Communion. He has sadly led his House of Bishops to make the recommendations that undergirded the General Synod Motion on ‘Living in Love & Faith,’ knowing that they run contrary to the faith & order of the orthodox provinces in the Communion whose people constitute the majority in the global flock. We pray that our withdrawal of support for him to lead the whole Communion is received by him as an admonishment in love. 

4.) With the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury forfeiting their leadership role of the global Communion, GSFA Primates will expeditiously meet, consult and work with other orthodox Primates in the Anglican Church across the nations to re-set the Communion on its biblical foundation. We look forward to collaborating with Primates and bishops in the GAFCON movement and other orthodox Anglican groupings to work out the shape and nature of our common life together and how we are to keep the priority of proclaiming and witnessing to the gospel of Jesus Christ in the world foremost in our life as God’s people. Together with other orthodox Primates, we will seek to address the leadership crisis that has arisen because for us, and perhaps by his own reported self-exclusion, the present Archbishop of Canterbury is no longer the ‘leader’ of the Communion and no longer the Chair of the Primates’ Meeting by virtue of his position.  

5.) GSFA Primates will carefully work with other orthodox Primates to provide Primatial and  episcopal oversight to orthodox dioceses and networks of Anglican churches who indicate their need and who consult with us. This is to ensure that the faithful all across the worldwide Anglican Church but who find themselves in revisionist Provinces receive the pastoral oversight, guidance and care of a global, connectional Church which the Anglican Communion is meant to be.  

6.) Given this action by the Church of England’s General Synod, we believe it is no longer possible to continue in the way the Communion is.  We do not accept the view that we can still “walk together” with the revisionist provinces as prescribed by the Anglican Communion Office and in the exploratory way proposed by IASCUFO (Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith & Order) at the recent Anglican Consultative Council (ACC)-18 meeting. 

7.) GSFA Primates are joint-stewards together with other orthodox Primates of the Anglican Communion, defined by its Formularies and that has been birthed and sustained by God through the centuries. We are accountable to the whole and to each other for the historic Christian faith and its practice in our autonomous Churches. The Church of England is the “historic first” province, but now that it has departed from the historic faith the responsibility falls to the remaining orthodox Primates. We will not walk away from the Communion that has so richly blessed us and for whose faithfulness to God and His word our forebears have paid a costly price. What has happened in the Church of England has only served to strengthen our resolve to work together to re-set the Communion, and to ensure that the re-set Communion is marked by reform and renewal. Only then will the Anglican Church as a whole be able to be God’s channel of light and transformation in a dark and broken world. Only then will we be able to live out our witness as part of God’s one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. 

To this end, GSFA will work humbly, boldly and charitably with other orthodox parts of the global Anglican Church. In our own Provinces, we will repent of the ways in which we ourselves fail to keep the covenant God has given us in Christ Jesus. We will ask God to purify and build up our churches so that we can authentically and passionately take the Gospel out to our respective nations and assigned fields.

And with a renewed and reset Communion, we will be able to join hands in mission and ministry across the nations to be a bright, collective light in the midst of the major challenges of our time.

This is what we in GSFA are looking forward to as we prepare for our first GSFA Assembly under our Covenantal Structure (Cairo, 2019) , which will be from 28th-31st May 2024 in Cairo.

To God be the glory as a new light mercifully dawns on His Church in the midst of the growing darkness. Isaiah 60:1-3.

__________________________________________________________________

This Statement is endorsed by the following GSFA Primates

1. Archbishop Justin Badi (Primate of South Sudan & Chair of GSFA)

2. Archbishop Hector (Tito) Zavala (Primate of Chile & Vice-Chair of GSFA)

3. Archbishop James Wong (Primate of Indian Ocean, GSFA Steering Committee member)

4. Archbishop Titre Ande (Primate of Congo, GSFA Steering Committee member)

5. Archbishop Stephen Than (Primate of Myanmar, GSFA Steering Committee member)

6. Archbishop Foley Beach (Primate of North America, GSFA Steering Committee member)

7. Archbishop Samuel Mankhin (Primate of Bangladesh , GSFA Steering Committee member)

8. Archbishop Stephen Kaziimba (Primate of Uganda)

9. Archbishop Ezekiel Kondo (Primate of Sudan)

10. Archbishop Samy Shehata (Primate of Alexandria)

11. Archbishop Miguel Uchoa Cavalcanti (Primate of Anglican Church in Brazil)

12. Archbishop Leonard Dawea (Primate of Melanesia)

Footnotes:

1 The GSFA is currently composed of 14 Provinces from a larger grouping of 25 Global South provinces. These 14 provinces plus one diocese have either signed on to be members of GSFA via assent to its Covenantal Structure (Cairo, 2019) or given written indication that a process to pursue GSFA membership has begun in their province. (See www.thegsfa.org)

2 ‘Orthodox’ provinces are those which hold to the plain and authoritaIve teaching of holy Scripture as historically understood, and correspondingly their ‘Faith & Order’ is consistent with what the Scriptures as a whole teach.

3 ‘The Church of England’s General Synod has welcomed proposals which would enable same-sex couples to come to church after a civil marriage or civil partnership to give thanks, dedicate their relationship to God and receive God’s blessing.’ (https://www.churchofengland.org/media-and-news/press-releases/prayers-gods-blessing-same-sex-couples-take-step-forward-after-synod)

4 Canon A5 : ‘The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-Nine ArIcles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.’

5 Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution 1.10 on Human Sexuality states that “while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation …” The ResoluIon also states that the Lambeth Conference “cannot advise the legiImising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.”

6 The ‘holy remnant’ in Scripture refers to that segment among God’s people who remain faithful to God’s covenant against wind and tide by trusting and obeying God’s word and keeping to God’s standard of right and wrong. They do so in spite of secIons of the wider community they belong to conforming to the world around them and disobeying the revealed word of God.

7 ‘Revisionist’ provinces are those who take a liberal view on the interpretation of holy Scripture and introduce new and innovative doctrines that do not agree with the plain teaching of Scripture as historically understood by the Church. In their ‘faith & order,’ revisionist provinces and dioceses move increasingly away from the bounds of Scripture.

Available here as a PDF file.

A Thin Gruel For The Soul

“The great Christian philosopher and theologian, Dallas Willard, once wrote that every compelling and coherent worldview must address four questions:

What is reality?
What is the good life?
What is a good person?
How does one become a good person?

Christianity, including the Anglican way of following Jesus, has answers to these questions. Reality is the unshakeable Kingdom of God (Hebrews 12:18-29). The good life is not about consumption, but rather righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17). The one who is blessed by Jesus (in every counter-intuitive and counter-cultural way he names in Matthew 5:1-12) is the good person. And one becomes such a person, a “disciple” according to Jesus, by denying oneself, taking up one’s cross, and following Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:24).

Sadly, you will find no answers to these questions in What do Anglicans Believe: A Study Guide to Christian Doctrine from Anglican and Ecumenical Statements, published by the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) last week …”

– The American Anglican Council’s Canon Phil Ashey points to a better way than a new book which has just been published.

EFAC Press Release – 02 May 2019

THE EVANGELICAL FELLOWSHIP IN THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION
PRESS RELEASE BY THE TRUSTEES

The Trustees of the Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion (EFAC) have read reports of the address by Archbishop Josiah Idowu-Fearon, the General Secretary of the Anglican Communion, to the Anglican Consultative Council currently meeting in Hong Kong in which he attributed the crisis in the Anglican Communion to “largely autocratic Primates and bishops in the Global South who do not behave as Anglicans” and asked the questions, “’How should we respond to GAFCON?” – the Global Anglican Fellowship of conservative Provinces that has been acting increasingly independently in recent years, after a split over sexuality. ‘How do we handle this to prevent schism in our Communion?’”

The Trustees have written to Archbishop Josiah stating that we will want to unpack with him in due course his criticism of GAFCON in circumstances where it is not disputed that the crisis within the Anglican Communion was started by the Episcopal Church acting independently over the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson and has been driven ever since by the independent actions of the Episcopal Church and other liberal provinces, acting against the advice of the Instruments of Communion.

In his address, Archbishop Josiah also suggested that, for a solution to the present crisis, one should look to the example of EFAC “which, in the 1960s, had deliberated breaking away to form an independent Evangelical Church, but had been dissuaded by the late Revd Dr John Stott”. In our communication with Archbishop Josiah, the Trustees of EFAC have stated that this is an inapt and unhelpful analogy, even if it were correct in fact (which it is not). The current crisis in the Anglican Communion is caused by a different issue, same-sex marriage and partnerships, an issue on which the views of the Revd Dr John Stott were clear:

“If you want me to stick my neck out, I think I would say that if the Church were officially to approve homosexual partnerships as a legitimate alternative to heterosexual marriage, this so far diverges from biblical sexual ethics that I would find it exceedingly difficult to stay. I might want to stay on and fight a few more years, but if they persisted, I would have to leave.” (John Stott, Balanced Christianity, p. 63)

This is also an issue on which EFAC is clear. EFAC’s constitution provides expressly, inter alia, as follows:

“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.”

There is no division between EFAC and GAFCON on issues of human sexuality and any attempt to create division will be resisted prayerfully and strenuously.

We have asked Archbishop Josiah publicly to correct the false analogy (in the same way as he has corrected his perceived critique of the Roman Catholic Church).

Bishop Keith Sinclair (Chairman)
Stephen Hofmeyr QC
Revd Canon Dr Chris Sugden
Carl Hughes.

Received by e-mail. Text extracted from this PDF file.

File image: Anglican Communion crest.

GAFCON Chairman’s March 2019 Letter

In his March 2019 Pastoral Letter, GAFCON Chairman Archbishop Nicholas D. Okoh highlights the confusion surrounding the 2020 Lambeth Conference:

“A recent blog by Dr Josiah Idowu-Fearon, the Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council, had confirmed that the Archbishop of Canterbury would be inviting bishops in same sex unions to Lambeth 2020, but not their partners. The exclusion of the spouses was a break with the convention, and with Archbishop Welby’s own previous statement that all bishops’ spouses would be included.

The reason given was that their presence would not be appropriate because Lambeth Resolution I.10 of 1998, which affirmed the biblical and historic understanding of marriage, remains the position of the Anglican Communion.

But how can the same sex spouses be excluded if their partners are still invited as bishops in good standing? Both are equally committed to a sexual relationship described by Lambeth Resolution I.10 as ‘incompatible with Scripture’.

The inconsistency is obvious to all. …”

– Read it all at the GAFCON website.

← Previous Page — Next Page →