The Jerusalem Declaration

[Albion]

Dear Norbie,
And you need to re-read the posts as you are very wrong in suggesting I said that.

That's been established. Norbie didn't read your post carefully and thought you said something other than you did. Anyone can check back and read your words directly.

I am praying that those who don’t support its aims find a way back to God. In what way do you think they are supposed to have departed?

I have a number of posters on this forum telling me I am worng and this and that without ever posting any reasoning or evidence.

Well, one thing's certain. If those who did what they did at GAFCON are not with God, hardly any Anglican in history has been...since the GAFCON delegates asserted nothing other than that which almost every Anglican believed until only a few years ago. It's an old trick to claim that the revisionists are somehow the conservatives while the defenders of the norm are somehow the ones changing things.

 

[Phinehas2]

Well, one thing's certain. If those who did what they did at GAFCON are not with God, hardly any Anglican in history has been...since the GAFCON delegates asserted nothing other than that which almost every Anglican believed until only a few years ago. It's an old trick to claim that the revisionists are somehow the conservatives while the defenders of the norm are somehow the ones changing things.

True

 

[No Swansong]

So what is new here? This looks like pretty much of the same as the Anglican Communion has had in the past.

True, the past but certainly not the present. Of course to most responsible for the changing the fact that it represents the Church of the past is the problem.

 

[Phinehas2]

I think GAFCON was a mighty success showing unity of heart and mind. What I suspect is that the 200 or so American bishops representing around 2M will cancel out the 200 or so African bsihops representing 20-30M !!
GAFCON might have represented the majority of Anglicans but the liberals have power out of all proportion.

 

[ebia]

I think GAFCON was a mighty success showing unity of heart and mind. What I suspect is that the 200 or so American bishops representing around 2M will cancel out the 200 or so African bsihops representing 20-30M !!
GAFCON might have represented the majority of Anglicans but the liberals have power out of all proportion.

Which raises the question - if we were to design instruments capable of deciding anything how would the "power" be distributed? Simple majority of bishops? Simple majority of Anglicans represented (a difficult thing to measure at the best of times given the lack of real membership criteria in most parts of the communion), simple majority of national churches, or what? What would it be inside a more tightly knit convental group should such arise within (or by separation from) the Communion?

Separate to that, what has GAFCON decided that can be overriden by anybody? Where in the Jerusalem statement is there anything that tries to bind others to anything or which requires their consent? If it did that it wouldn't be just the 200 American Bishops who were 'cancelling' it out but every bishop who chose to go to Lambeth and not GAFCON - there are many who are unhappy with both TEC and the GAFCON response.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear ebia,

Which raises the question - if we were to design instruments capable of deciding anything how would the "power" be distributed?

Which raises the question who is 'we'?

Simple majority of bishops? Simple majority of Anglicans represented (a difficult thing to measure at the best of times given the lack of real membership criteria in most parts of the communion), simple majority of national churches, or what? What would it be inside a more tightly knit convental group should such arise within (or by separation from) the Communion?

The Bible doesnt talk of people deciding what is right but people either accepting what is right. Whether the liberal minority with disproportional organisational power, or the believing majority 'win' is just a reflection on whether the Anglican Communion accepts error or not. Obviously proportional represntation would be nice to ensure the right result.

Separate to that, what has GAFCON decided that can be overriden by anybody?

Anyone can overide anything they want ebia, if they couldnt there would have been no GAFCON so I dont se your point.

there are many who are unhappy with both TEC and the GAFCON response.

How can they be unhappy with both when if it waasnt for the TEC there wouldnt have been a GAFCON?

 

[ebia]

Dear ebia,
Which raises the question who is 'we'?

I had in mind the Anglican Communion.

The Bible doesnt talk of people deciding what is right but people either accepting what is right. Whether the liberal minority with disproportional organisational power, or the believing majority 'win' is just a reflection on whether the Anglican Communion accepts error or not.

Nobody decides to accept that which they know to be error to be true - the people who disagree with you are just as convinced that they are right about God's will as you are. If you want to change anybody's opinion you need to persuade them, not keep telling everyone that it's self-evident that you are right and they are wrong. If we are to enforce anything then some human body - person, committee, instruments, whatever - has to decide what and when someone has strayed too far from scripture. Who or what should decide that? So far you have offered nothing more than your personal judgement of what is/should be self-evident; and scripture which does need to be the starting point but always needs interpreting and applying.

Obviously proportional represntation would be nice to ensure the right result.

That essentially puts all the power in the hands of two or three African national churches, who outnumber all the rest of us put together. Is that really what you want? I suspect not if we started looking at some other issues, but if it is then say so.

Anyone can overide anything they want ebia, if they couldnt there would have been no GAFCON so I dont se your point.

Anybody can ignore anything they want. There is nothing to override because there are no instruments currently for telling anyone else what to do - each national church is fully independent of all the others. That's part of the problem. GAFCON's statement, as it stands, doesn't change that.

If we want a communion where a national church can be effectively called to account then we have to design some instruments to do that. GAFCON could have stepped up to the plate with some serious, workable, suggestions for how we might do that, but it hasn't. Rather, it's made some statements we all already agreed on but were worth restating, but then given a free-for-all legitimacy for anyone to reject authority if they believe the person wielding that authority is less than orthodox. What we need, if we are to hold authorities to account, are some instruments to decide when it's proper to do that. GAFCON hasn't done anything to forward that as far as I can see, and the absence from Lambeth of some of the GAFCON bishops, IMO, makes it less likely that Lambeth will either.

As a body the Communion needs to decide how much diversity it can sustain, how it will decide when too much is too much, and how it will call those who overstep the mark to account. And then apply that to the case in hand. Not put in place rash statements that might address the issue in hand effectively but cause disintegration over all the other issues where diversity is sustainable.

Pretend for a minute that the conscration of +Gene has been resolved in some way you are okay with. How do we deal with all the other issues currently going on or future, issues of women priests and bishops; of border crossing; of failing to provide adequate support and oversight to parishes of different traditions to the diocese in which they fall; of polygamy; of divorce; of calling into doubt literal belief various doctines; of failing to be a church at mission; of....

How can they be unhappy with both when if it waasnt for the TEC there wouldnt have been a GAFCON?

Two wrongs don't make a right. TEC's actions may have been wrong, but that does not make any and all possible responses to TEC's actions good.

 

[Albion]

Two wrongs don't make a right. TEC's actions may have been wrong, but that does not make any and all possible responses to TEC's actions good.

You talk as though there's a second Anglican Communion (GAFCON) and every Anglican in the world needs to worry about how it will function.

It is not a rival communion. It is a voluntary association.

All the provinces represented at GAFCON remain and have said that they will remain part of the Anglican Communion. And as for the procedural and parliamentary issues related to how it conducts business when convened that are worrying you, they are soley the business of those who choose to be part of GAFCON.

 

[ebia]

You talk as though there's a second Anglican Communion (GAFCON) and every Anglican in the world needs to worry about how it will function.

It is not a rival communion. It is a voluntary association.

I do realise all of that - I'm not asking "how will a rival communion operate" but "how would GAFCON like the existing communion to operate", or (failing that) "how will the GAFCON members choose to operate within the Communion?"

All the provinces represented at GAFCON remain and have said that they will remain part of the Anglican Communion.

Which I'm very pleased about - I do not wish to see them leave.

And as for the procedural and parliamentary issues related to how it conducts business when convened that are worrying you, they are soley the business of those who choose to be part of GAFCON.

Is that a "shut up and mind your own business?" Surely, if the GAFCON movement is to have any affect it will affect us all. If it suggests rejecting some authorities not represented by GAFCON it does affect us all. If they want it to become a wider movement than so far represented it does affect us all. The idea that, as it stands, it doesn't impact anyone else seems a little naieve and counter to its whole person for existing.

 

[Albion]

I do realise all of that - I'm not asking "how will a rival communion operate" but "how would GAFCON like the existing communion to operate", or (failing that) "how will the GAFCON members choose to operate within the Communion?"

You know, the GAFCON people have been very transparent and laid out exactly what they feel needs to be done...and it is so very limited. It doesn't call for acceptance by anyone of a single new theological proposition.

Is that a "shut up and mind your own business?"

No, this is a discussion board and stray musings are always in order IMO. The preoccupation with GAFCON's operating procedures seemed out of place for one whose church isn't participating in GAFCON, is all that that amounted to.

Surely, if the GAFCON movement is to have any affect it will affect us all. If it suggests rejecting some authorities not represented by GAFCON it does affect us all.

Because the Anglican Communion will not have as many active participants?

If they want it to become a wider movement than so far represented it does affect us all. The idea that, as it stands, it doesn't impact anyone else seems a little naieve and counter to its whole person for existing.

All right, I suppose it can be said that you'll be "affected" by the Communion's paralysis and subsequent impotence. But as has been said before, that was the choice made by the Communion. GAFCON was only the consequence of the Anglican Communion not standing by its principles and decisions, not the cause of it.

 

[ebia]

You know, the GAFCON people have been very transparent and laid out exactly what they feel needs to be done...and it is so very limited.

Maybe I'm missing something then...

It doesn't call for acceptance by anyone of a single new theological proposition.

acknowledged.

No, this is a discussion board and stray musings are always in order IMO. The preoccupation with GAFCON's operating procedures seemed out of place for one whose church isn't participating in GAFCON, is all that that amounted to.

Maybe I'm not communicating well, because that isn't really what I'm trying to get at. It's precisely because the GAFCON statements are a lot more positive than widely expected that I think it worth discussing where we might be heading in light of that. If no-one wants to then that's fine. But if GAFCON catches on who's to say where my parish, diocese, or national church may one day decide to go? If that happens or if GAFCON manages to influence the overall communion for the better (or worse) then how it operates is important to me. It seems slightly strange that this shouldn't be open for discussion, just as I would expect to be able to discuss how a political party operates without being a member. If GAFCON had been simply a one-off it's operating and decision making proceedures wouldn't be of much interest, but as it's declared an intention to being an ongoing movement then that's very different.

Because the Anglican Communion will not have as many active participants?

Sorry? Maybe we are completely misunderstanding each other but I can't figure what this means in response to what I said.
What I mean was along the lines that if various authorities are being rejected by various people that means more seeking oversight across diocesan and national borders. Maybe that is where we need to go, but is it unreasonable to want to discuss what an organised and appropriate approach to that should look like if it's being advocated on a yet wider scale? Or do we want a free-for-all where anybody seeks oversight wherever they choose?

All right, I suppose it can be said that you'll be "affected" by the Communion's paralysis and subsequent impotence. But as has been said before, that was the choice made by the Communion.
GAFCON was only the consequence of the Anglican Communion not standing by its principles and decisions, not the cause of it.

The Communion has never had any mechanisms by which to "stand by its principles and decisions" given the autonomy of all the national churches. Is it unreasonable to want to talk about what mechanisms might solve that?

 

[karen freeinchristman]

there are many who are unhappy with both TEC and the GAFCON response.

This is true, and it reminds me of Tom Wright's further response to GAFCON. He is particularly concerned with the apparent linking of what has happened in TEC with how the Church of England is proceeding. An excerpt:

The problem is that GAFCON is addressing (at least) three quite different issues:
a. The real, substantial and scandalous situation in the USA and Canada;
b. The African sense that it’s time for leadership to come from black Africa rather than white N Atlantic;
c. The belief among a VERY SMALL group of hard-line right-wing English evangelicals (including in Sydney, Australia) that they are called to take over the C of E by aggressive planting of new churches under the nose even of existing evangelical churches and bishops, and insisting that they are the only real ‘evangelicals’, that they alone are true to scripture.

What is happening is that the Archbishop of Sydney, and his English colleagues, are using the fact of (a) and the energy of (b) to advance their agenda on (c). I am objecting as strongly as I can to (c) since I believe it to be doctrinally and pastorally unwarranted and extremely dangerous even in the short and medium term, let alone in the long. These objections have nothing whatever to do with compromising the gospel or the ethical teaching of scripture.
​

 

[ebia]

Thanks for that Karen

 

[Albion]

I agree with you on A and B, and as for C, that strikes me as just laughable. It's as though Bishop Wright had to find some way of salting or pumping up his thesis in order to make the situation seem more threatening than it is. A and/or B aren't enough for that (B, in fact, is almost nothing at all). But if you want people to think the sky is falling, you have to come up with something other than saying you don't like rainy days.

A more learned reaction can be found on David Virtue's site, VirtueOnline, at www.virtueonline.org in the article entitled "GAFCON: Why Wright is Wrong and Rodgers is Right."