The Truth That Sets Free – Understanding the GAFCON 2008 Jerusalem Statement and Declaration
Introduction
During the course of the conference, a familiar phrase on the daily bulletins was that we pilgrims were part of ‘a movement not a moment’. The priority given to prayer, faithful bible teaching and worship created a context of openness to the mind of Christ and, despite the marked contrasts in national and church cultures among nearly 1,200 participants, the outpouring of joy and thanksgiving which greeted the reading of the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration, both in draft and then again in final form, can have left very few doubting that they had participated in a sovereign move of God, well beyond the powers of human contrivance. So it is entirely appropriate that the Jerusalem Statement should begin with a ringing call to worship (Psalm 147:1-2) and that the introduction should describe GAFCON as ‘not just a moment in time, but a movement in the Spirit’.
But what does this ‘movement of the Spirit’ amount to? Intuitively, everyone knows that something of historic significance has happened, but what has actually emerged? Interpretations vary widely. Some see the GAFCON movement as ‘a church within a church’, others describe it as a ‘breakaway faction’ and yet another body of opinion is inclined to see it as a ‘coup d’état’ against the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth establishment. In this analysis, I shall seek to let the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration speak for itself by drawing out its inner logic, not simply as a coldly analytical exercise, but from the perspective of one who was present during that momentous week in Jerusalem as human agendas were overtaken by divine initiative, as both the sternness and kindness of God were made manifest in the midst of the Anglican Communion’s deepening crisis and confusion.
The question of how the GAFCON movement relates to England is especially significant. If it has no structural implications for the Church of England, it could be seen as ultimately capable of assimilation into the status quo, essentially a kind of sodality, perhaps not unlike the Jesuits or other movements for reform and renewal within a wider church. But if the GAFCON movement intends to set up a Conciliar leadership as an alternative jurisdiction to the historic See of Canterbury, yet still within the Anglican Communion, then more radical possibilities begin to emerge. The analysis below follows the headings of the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration which can be accessed at http://www.gafcon.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=29.
First we turn to a stern verdict.
The Global Anglican Context
In a refreshing contrast to the contrived optimism characteristic of statements issued by the Lambeth leadership, the GAFCON Declaration is clear minded and radical as it lays bare the roots of the current crisis. Whereas the Windsor Report carefully skirted around the underlying theological issues which drive the current crisis, precipitated by the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, here the fact of false teaching and spiritual decline in the West is faced without equivocation. As a confessional movement, GAFCON has the ability to penetrate beyond matters of procedure and process, to allow the voice of Scripture to be heard in a way which the established leadership of the Anglican Communion cannot articulate because it has no agreement about the authority of Scripture and must therefore fall back on its own self – referencing institutional authority.
The stresses thus created in the Anglican Communion have now reached breaking point. The revisionist programme is restless. The Apostle Paul reminds us that ‘false teaching spreads like gangrene’ (2 Timothy 2:17) and left unchecked it will grow. Thus the first of three ‘undeniable facts’ identified by the Jerusalem Statement is ‘the acceptance and promotion within the provinces of the Anglican Communion of a different ‘gospel’ (cf. Galatians 1:6-8)’ and it is implied from the reference in this section to ‘the most economically developed nations’, a term familiar from development economics, that the provinces in view are not only those of North America, but also include England and the British Isles together with other provinces which are economically and culturally ‘Western’.
It was inevitable that the Anglican revisionist programme would face a major challenge because of those fundamental global shifts analysed by Philip Jenkins in his book ‘The Next Christendom’. As secularised Western Churches decline, the vibrant orthodox Churches of the Global South, especially in Africa, are experiencing unprecedented growth and this reality is reflected in the second ‘undeniable fact’ which notes that certain Global South provinces have broken communion with those promoting a false gospel and have been willing to cross institutional boundaries to protect and support those who have been forced to break with ungodly oversight. Significantly it is stated that a ‘major realignment has occurred and will continue to unfold’. This implies that there is no realistic expectation that the Western Churches will be able to reform themselves, an impression confirmed by the third ‘undeniable fact’ which is ‘the manifest failure of the Communion Instruments to exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy’. Here is summarised the mounting frustration of Global South Primates with the existing ‘instruments of unity’ after ten years of fruitless debate, the experience memorably described by Archbishop Peter Akinola as ‘The Most Agonising Journey’ Rather than working to enable a godly unity, the Communion Instruments have been exposed as instruments of control and manipulation to reinforce neo-colonial assumptions of cultural and spiritual superiority. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s invitation to Lambeth of the TEC bishops who supported Gene Robinson’s consecration, pre-empting the disciplinary procedures thought to have been agreed by the Primates at Dar es Salaam in February 2007, was clearly a turning point. In his opening address at GAFCON Peter Akinola stated:
At this point, it dawned upon us, regrettably, that the Archbishop of Canterbury was not interested in what matters to us, in what we think or in what we say.
And so the Statement comes to ’the devastating conclusion that ‘we are a global communion with a colonial structure’.’ and that the tear in the fabric of the Communion is so severe ‘that it cannot simply be patched back together’. The time when strategies for reform through the existing Anglican Communion institutions, such as those proposed in ‘To Mend the Net’ and the Windsor report is now well and truly past.
Does an inner tension now arise in the Jerusalem Statement? On the one hand, the formation of a new Communion is explicitly ruled out in the introduction with the affirmation that ‘We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it.’ On the other hand the Communion is seen to have fallen under the control of leadership which is effectively apostate, having let go of the gospel while holding on to the Church. The division being revealed in the Communion is so fundamental and deep seated that, as the past decade has demonstrated, it is beyond the capacity of the existing Communion instruments to repair.
The only way this tension can be resolved is to conclude that the GAFCON movement is doing nothing less than laying claim to be the rightful leadership of the Anglican Communion. Some voices at GAFCON, notably SPREAD and Bishop John Rodgers in his conference address ‘Where do we go from here?’ were urging that the Anglican Communion had become so dysfunctional that the only consistent and stable way forward would be to declare the formation of a new Global Anglican Communion, while others, especially those nervous about the financial and legal implications of such a step in the doctrinally mixed provinces, were urging the more cautious approach of emphasising doctrinal definition while staying firmly within the Communion. In the providence of God, both these views converged, not as a compromise, but as a commitment to deep change from within. As Bishop John Rodgers himself observed in his reflection on the conference, GAFCON has taken the bold step of claiming ‘We are the Communion’ and this has resulted in action which is ‘actually more searching and radical than just leaving would have been’
A Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
GAFCON is of course a fellowship and a Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans has been set up, but it is also clear that the movement is intended to lead to more than the formation of a fellowship which is content to represent one ‘flavour’ of Anglicanism amongst others. As has been demonstrated, the logic of the Statement thus far implies that GAFCON represents the legitimate expression of the Anglican Communion and the next step in the statement is to ground the GAFCON movement in the recovery of the Anglican Communion’s historic confessional identity in a definition which follows the wording of Canon A5, still the legally recognised basis of the doctrine of the Church of England, namely: The doctrine of the Church 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 Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal.
The Jerusalem Declaration
The fourteen points of the Jerusalem Declaration embedded in the Statement expand on this core definition and include (point 4) an unambiguous affirmation of the Thirty-nine articles as containing ‘ the true doctrine of the Church’ and ‘as authoritative for Anglicans today’.
The Declaration is an affirmation of confessional identity. It is not a suggestion, but is intended to be ‘a contemporary rule’ and effectively rewrites the basis of belonging to the Anglican Communion. The provinces of Nigeria and Rwanda have already established this principle in their constitutions by removing references to being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury as a defining feature of being Anglican. Similarly, the Statement recognises the historical significance of the See of Canterbury but is clear that Anglican identity is not ‘determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury’. Two points within the Declaration show the logic implicit in the Statement taking shape:
a) Positively, it promotes biblical and apostolic unity on the basis of a bold assertion of spiritual authority. Hence point 11 of the Declaration states ‘We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration’. In this way, GAFCON paves the way for the acceptance of those currently not counted as being in communion by the Archbishop of Canterbury such as the Church of England in South Africa, which is not recognised by Canterbury for historical reasons although its orders are valid, as well as the new jurisdictions in North America and others that may arise in the future.
b) The integrity of this positive commitment to biblical and apostolic Anglicanism is underscored by the explicit rejection of false unity. Point 13 of the Declaration declares that ‘We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed’. Recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury is therefore rendered ultimately irrelevant to the question of Anglican identity. As Dr J I Packer commented, speaking at the post GAFCON Day Conference at All Souls Langham Place ‘There is something dispensable about the Archbishop of Canterbury and it is not of the essence of Anglicanism to be in communion with him when he becomes part of the doctrinal problem.’ Whereas in the past institutional unity as defined by reference to Canterbury took precedence over confessional integrity, now any recognition by Canterbury – or any other Archbishop – should only be counted valid if consistent with Anglican doctrine as set out in the Jerusalem Declaration.
The Road Ahead and the Primates’ Council
We have already noted that GAFCON is a spiritual movement; it is also missionary in motivation, seeking to ensure that the Anglican Communion can become a safe place for the gospel with a clear and undiluted witness to the apostolic faith. This requires practical steps to embody what it means to be an Anglican Communion restored to its biblical and reformed roots. A confessional church is committed to living under the authority of Scripture and this is given definition through the Jerusalem Declaration. In turn this calls for a form of leadership in the Anglican Communion which can exercise effective authority and the vehicle for this is the Primates Council, comprised initially of the GAFCON participating Primates who are called upon to ‘authenticate and recognise confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and congregations and to encourage all Anglicans to promote the gospel and defend the faith.’ This Conciliar structure embodies the logic of the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration. It is the natural outworking of what it means to be a confessionally defined Communion at a time when the existing instruments of unity, including the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, have been subverted by those who promote a false gospel to the extent that there is no real restraint on the Communion’s accelerating confusion and disorder.
In taking this step, it becomes absolutely clear that the GAFCON movement is not simply a fellowship or even a ‘church within a church’. It is the Church; the movement lays claim to the Anglican Communion as a whole. After years of frustration and confusion, the emergence of the Primates Council is liberation from the neo-colonial Lambeth establishment. The old compromised sources of authority have had their grip weakened. They no longer enjoy a monopoly on the validation of Anglican ministry and mission and as time passes will no doubt see their authority erode as the spiritual life and vigour of the Global South increasingly moves behind the GAFCON movement which already has a good claim to represent some 75% of global Anglicans. Archbishop Peter Akinola’s keynote opening address to the pilgrims in Jerusalem was entitled ‘GAFCON – A Rescue Mission’ and this sense of responsibility is reflected in the Statements’ vision for the work of the Primates Council. The first step will be the formation and recognition of new province in North America based on the Common Cause Partnership, but the Primates are encouraged to offer ’help around the world’ and should consider themselves free to intervene where ‘churches and leaders are denying the orthodox faith or are preventing its spread.’
Does England Need GAFCON?
As the historic Mother Church of the Communion, what happens in England has a particular significance for the whole Anglican Communion. If the GAFCON ‘rescue mission’ is needed here, then it is absolutely clear that the focus of spiritual authority has shifted to the Global South and that the Anglican Communion is being reconstituted around the Jerusalem Primates. At the GAFCON follow up meeting on July 1st at All Souls, Langham Place, alongside the Archbishops of Uganda, The Southern Cone and Sydney, Dr J I Packer called for the Jerusalem Declaration to be the agreed basis for orthodoxy and missionary action in England, that PCC’s and Diocesan Synods should adopt it as their ‘guiding star’ and that all new and existing bishops should be required to subscribe to it. He sat down to a standing ovation.
This call evoked a vigorous response from N T Wright, the Bishop of Durham, who claimed that ‘the English situation is NOT like America. Of course there is something you can call ‘liberalism’, which has affected many parts of the church, but life is much more complicated and interesting, and actually hopeful, than the old, tired rhetoric of ‘creeping liberalism’ would allow for’ and ‘the present structures are neither powerless nor spineless. The General Synod of the Church of England has not voted to allow same-sex blessings or the ordination of practicing homosexuals’. Reassuring though it may sound, there are two major flaws in this rejection of GAFCON:
a) Tom Wright is over-optimistic about the ‘present structures’ of the Church of England. General Synod is certainly not spineless as he subsequently found to his dismay just one day after releasing his statement on the All Souls meeting. When the hierarchy realised that the Synod were about to do away with the safeguards for conscience essential to keep conservatives, especially the Anglo- Catholics, within the Church of England he attempted to get an adjournment of the debate, but lost. The reality is that General Synod is using its powers to trespass into areas of fundamental doctrine on the basis of ‘rights’ derived from wider secular society. The fact that no provision was made for those opposed to women bishops was based on the understanding that to do so would amount to the approval of sex discrimination and on this basis it is easy to foresee the Synod going on to justify the admission of those in same gender sexual relationships to holy orders and the episcopate. Anyone doubting that this vote is a part of a continuing process should ponder the remarks of Giles Goddard, Chair of Inclusive Church as he celebrates the Synod’s vote: ‘It is a time for rejoicing. We have reached another milestone in the long process of removing the barriers to inclusion in the Church of England.’ A clearer example of ‘creeping liberalism’ would be difficult to find.
b) He under-estimates the similarities between England and the USA. While it may lag behind, the English Church, along with its sister Churches in the British Isles, is clearly on the same trajectory as TEC. While it is true that the general Synod has not yet given official sanction to same sex blessings or the ordination of practicing homosexuals, he fails to recognize that such legislation is simply the final stage of a process which is already well advanced. Archbishop Greg Venables has commented that “The central question of the attitude to gay partnerships is just as big and pressing a matter in England as in North America and the division of opinion runs as deep in North America and so all the factors that could bring internal division and a blow up are there” . The Archbishop of Canterbury himself has never repented of his theological writings which helped to give intellectual respectability to the gay/lesbian movement and GAFCON was largely precipitated by his wholly predictable failure to exercise any effective discipline on this issue within the Anglican Communion. What little discipline has been exercised in England has been on the grounds of procedure rather than the sinfulness or otherwise of same sex partnerships. And lying behind this specific controversy is the fact of widespread unbelief amongst the clergy. So there is little ground for optimism that the Church of England will be able to resist the inexorable pressure of the prevailing culture.
In short, the Bishop of Durham’s dismissal of GAFCON is representative of a mindset which comes dangerously close to that sin which so grieved Jeremiah in the final years before the exile, of spiritual leaders ‘healing the wound of my people lightly’ (Jeremiah 6;14,8:11). GAFCON, as a consistently confessional movement, is able to bring a much more penetrating diagnosis. Point 13 of the Jerusalem Declaration recognises that denial of the faith can occur through either ‘word or deed’ ; we should not wait until leaders or churches actually act on false teaching, but should reject their authority when it is clear that their teaching is a denial of the faith. The New Testament does not make a distinction between ‘word ‘ and ‘deed’ and warns against continuing in fellowship with those who promote false teaching. In fact if the teaching of heresy is tolerated, the recent history of American Anglicanism suggests that it becomes impossible to effectively resist the practice of heresy. If Anglican Evangelicals were able to recognise that heretical words are as serious as heretical deeds and act on that basis in England, GAFCON and the Primates Council would be as necessary and vital to their continued existence as Anglicans as the various African jurisdictions were in North America before the formation of the Anglican Church of North America.
It should be clear from the analysis above that the GAFCON movement is not simply a response to the problems in North America. It is a radical initiative to liberate the Anglican Communion from revisionist hegemony. As the GAFCON leaders state in the conclusion of the Jerusalem Statement ‘The primary reason we have come to Jerusalem and issued this declaration is to free our churches to give clear and certain witness to Jesus Christ. The leadership of the Church of England, especially the present Archbishop of Canterbury, has been deeply and demonstrably complicit in the doctrinal confusion to whch GAFCON is responding. The Church of England cannot avoid that fork in the road to which the Anglican Communion as a whole has come and faces perhaps its last chance to acknowledge the seriousness of its wounds and its need for outside help. It is now over a quarter of a century since what we now call the Global South spoke prophetically to the Church of England through the Partners in Mission report ‘To a Rebellious House’ (1981). While the sternness of God is evident in the verdict of GAFCON on the mother church, this movement also embodies the kindness of God; it has not abandoned the Church of England by forming a new Communion but offers itself as a ‘rescue mission’ if we have the humility to embrace it.
Charles Raven