The Jerusalem Declaration

[DominusIesus]

I hope you will find the following interesting. It is taken from GAFCON Final Statement.

In the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit:​

We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, have met in the land of Jesus’ birth. We express our loyalty as disciples to the King of kings, the Lord Jesus. We joyfully embrace his command to proclaim the reality of his kingdom which he first announced in this land. The gospel of the kingdom is the good news of salvation, liberation and transformation for all. In light of the above, we agree to chart a way forward together that promotes and protects the biblical gospel and mission to the world, solemnly declaring the following tenets of orthodoxy which underpin our Anglican identity.​

1. We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because God first loved us, we love him and as believers bring forth fruits of love, ongoing repentance, lively hope and thanksgiving to God in all things.
2. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.
3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.
5. We gladly proclaim and submit to the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, humanity’s only Saviour from sin, judgement and hell, who lived the life we could not live and died the death that we deserve. By his atoning death and glorious resurrection, he secured the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith.
6. We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.
7. We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.
8. 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.
9. We gladly accept the Great Commission of the risen Lord to make disciples of all nations, to seek those who do not know Christ and to baptise, teach and bring new believers to maturity.
10. We are mindful of our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation, to uphold and advocate justice in society, and to seek relief and empowerment of the poor and needy.
11. We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. 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.
12. We celebrate the God-given diversity among us which enriches our global fellowship, and we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters. We pledge to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us.
13. We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.
14. We rejoice at the prospect of Jesus’ coming again in glory, and while we await this final event of history, we praise him for the way he builds up his church through his Spirit by miraculously changing lives.

 

[TomUK]

indeed!

 

[ebia]

I hope you will find the following interesting. It is taken from GAFCON Final Statement.

In the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit:
​

We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, have met in the land of Jesus’ birth. We express our loyalty as disciples to the King of kings, the Lord Jesus. We joyfully embrace his command to proclaim the reality of his kingdom which he first announced in this land. The gospel of the kingdom is the good news of salvation, liberation and transformation for all. In light of the above, we agree to chart a way forward together that promotes and protects the biblical gospel and mission to the world, solemnly declaring the following tenets of orthodoxy which underpin our Anglican identity.
​

1. We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because God first loved us, we love him and as believers bring forth fruits of love, ongoing repentance, lively hope and thanksgiving to God in all things.
2. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.
3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.
5. We gladly proclaim and submit to the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, humanity’s only Saviour from sin, judgement and hell, who lived the life we could not live and died the death that we deserve. By his atoning death and glorious resurrection, he secured the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith.
6. We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.
7. We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.
8. 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.
9. We gladly accept the Great Commission of the risen Lord to make disciples of all nations, to seek those who do not know Christ and to baptise, teach and bring new believers to maturity.
10. We are mindful of our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation, to uphold and advocate justice in society, and to seek relief and empowerment of the poor and needy.
11. We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. 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.
12. We celebrate the God-given diversity among us which enriches our global fellowship, and we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters. We pledge to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us.
13. We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.
14. We rejoice at the prospect of Jesus’ coming again in glory, and while we await this final event of history, we praise him for the way he builds up his church through his Spirit by miraculously changing lives.

Pretty uncontraversial except for point 13 which has practical difficulties - do any of us manage to be completely orthodox (or completely hetrodox)? Who gets to decide where the line(s) in the sand are drawn. Other than that I've no problem affirming the rest.

 

[DominusIesus]

Who gets to decide where the line(s) in the sand are drawn. Other than that I've no problem affirming the rest.

I think the answer is in point 1-8

 

[ebia]

I think the answer is in point 1-8

If only life were that simple...

The reality is that if point 13 is to be 'enforced' there has to be some human agency deciding if the line has been crossed or not according to some interpretation of scripture, the 39, etc. If we all agreed what each of those said we wouldn't have got to this point in the first place.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear ebia,
I also say

the answer to 13 can be found in 1-8.

One can see a line has been crossed, it is not where there is debate over the interpretations of scripture but where something is claimed where there is no scriptural support to offer to debate and the opposite of scripture or the denial of scripture is being proposed.

 

[ebia]

Dear ebia,
I also say

the answer to 13 can be found in 1-8.

One can see a line has been crossed, it is not where there is debate over the interpretations of scripture but where something is claimed where there is no scriptural support to offer to debate and the opposite of scripture or the denial of scripture is being proposed.

Who decides that? Sure, there are fairly clear cut cases, but if the principle is allowed the point will always be pushed and some instrument more practically specific than "points 1-8" has to exist to decide which cases are meritted and which are not. I'm happy to conceed that some people have clearly gone beyond "points 1-8", but I'm equally certain other people (of varying persuasions) will claim that various other people they disagree with have crossed that line and therefore have no authority. Who ++Peter Jensen thinks has crossed the line will be different than who +Tom Wright thinks has crossed the line will be different than who +Ross Davies thinks has crossed the line will be different to .... And then there will be the entirely spurious claims - I know specifically of one parish in the UK already under alternative episcopal oversight who actively recommended other parishes to lie about their theology and seek oversight from +Ebbsfleet rather than +Exeter not because they actually had a theological problem with women priests but because they would get a softer ride.

When a parish decides they don't like their bishop because of X and don't accept his authority, who decides if their case is warranted? If the thing is to have any real and practical implimentation but there is to be any vestage of authority left vested in bishops etc then someone or some set of instruments have to exist to decide - saying "points 1-8" is much open to interpretation and opinion to be usuable.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear ebia,

Who decides that?

who decides 1 + 1 =2 and not 3?

Sure, there are fairly clear cut cases,

that’s right, where there is a clear cut case.
GAFCON has shown a majority believes this is a clear cut case, and indeed many also do who were not at GAFCON. Sadly there are a lot who don’t who don’t proportionally represent many Anglican either.

When a parish decides they don't like their bishop because of X and don't accept his authority, who decides if their case is warranted?

All authority is given by Jesus to make disciples teaching them to obey all He taught, if a Bishop doesn’t, he doesn’t have that authority. You are just looking at the Bishop and the parish, authority comes from and through Christ.

 

[ebia]

Dear ebia,

who decides 1 + 1 =2 and not 3?

There are all sorts of problems with that as an analogy. The point is if you are going to enforce it some person or body has to decide whether a line has been crossed. However unambiguous the lawmakers attempt to be you still need judge and jury to interpret and apply it and the bible is a heck of a lot more subtle to apply than most statutes.

that’s right, where there is a clear cut case.

90% of us might agree that a line has been crossed in one case - lets say (for sake of argument, Bishop Spong), in another case 80% of us might agree that a line has been crossed, in another case 70%, ... in another case 10%, in a another case only one person. The reality is that even the people at GAFCON, while they can presumably agree on the issue of the election of +Gene Robinson, have other issues where they would not agree - where one of them thinks a line has been crossed and another does not. Let's hypothetically take it as read that the case is clear cut here - but this sets a precident, how is it to be determined whether the case is clear cut or not in future issues (and past ones that are still relevant, for that matter). If point 13 applies to those who ordain homosexuals (say), how do we decide if it applies to those who ordain women, those who deny the bodily resurrection (of Jesus), those who effectively deny a bodily resurrection of us by teaching a disembodied 'spiritual' heaven, .... those who teach certain halmark 'catholic' or halmark 'protestant' teachings....

It's not good enough saying "its clear cut in this case" if you thereby create mayhem over all those others.

GAFCON has shown a majority believes this is a clear cut case, and indeed many also do who were not at GAFCON.

a majority of what? If we mean "the bishops representing a majority of Anglicans" decide that puts almost total power in the hands of a handful of African bishops - is that really where you want to go in general?

Sadly there are a lot who don’t who don’t proportionally represent many Anglican either.

All authority is given by Jesus to make disciples teaching them to obey all He taught, if a Bishop doesn’t, he doesn’t have that authority. You are just looking at the Bishop and the parish, authority comes from and through Christ.

Absolutely - all authority is Christ's delegated - but do you really want every parish deciding individually whether it is going to accept the (delegated) authority of its diocesan or not? Because the fact is that a lot of parishes have a huge variety of reasons for not wanting to. At the moment we are an Episcopal church without any instruments for dealing with Bishops who are out of line - this is liable to set a precident whereby we become an Episcopal church without any instruments for dealing with any unit that is out of line, because that unit can simply declare that the authority above them is 'heretical' and therefore has no authority.

Even where greavences are understandable, does GAFCON intend this, does ++Peter Jensen really want to give his handful of high church parishes the legitimacy to seek oversight elsewhere (Newcastle?) with no instruments in place to say "hang on a minute"?

If there is to be a line, the we are agreed that Scripture, accompanied by all those other things, forms the basis on which to decide, but in the end there has to be someone or some body or some instruments that actually do the deciding or everyone is left deciding who's authority they will and will not accept for themselves - that may be ok, but it's not the episcopal model.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear ebia,
I think you are missing the point that GAFCON, which I think do represent about a 75% majority of the communion, think it is a clear cut case.

The reality is that even the people at GAFCON, while they can presumably agree on the issue of the election of +Gene Robinson, have other issues where they would not agree - where one of them thinks a line has been crossed and another does not.

Yes, although GAFCON was essentially a meeting of the majority as a result of the majority line of a decade ago on same-sex unions being crossed, other lines crossed by those who weren’t there were also stated and described.

a majority of what?

A representation of the majority of Anglicans and I would say the majority Christian view, the historic, apostolic one.

Absolutely - all authority is Christ's delegated - but do you really want every parish deciding individually whether it is going to accept the (delegated) authority of its diocesan or not?

No the authority is Christ, Christ in us the hope of glory guided in truth by the Holy Spirit. But as to every parish deciding to submit to the authority of their Bishop, why should they if the Bishop can’t submit to the Communion authority?

Yes there has been a body who have decided, Lambeth 1.10 was the decision, many who talk of wanting a decision therefore don’t want a decision as such, they only want a decision that accomodates their view at the expense of he majority.

 

[Secundulus]

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

 

[Albion]

Friends, I get the idea that some of you still don't understand what has happened. In all the talk about article 13 or etc., there seems to be some assumption that this is a call for more debate or future negotiations. It's not.

To say such things as "Who decides what is orthodox?" or "Who decides when a line has been crossed?"misses the point entirely. The signatories gave the liberal provinces years and years to come around, even partially, and worked through the usual channels. The result was that they were stonewalled and told that there was nothing they could do about it.

So with the Jerusalem statement, we are reading what they decided to do in view of that fact. It's not a proposal for more time-wasting. They know whom they consider orthodox and whom unorthodox, and they are going to act on that. Anyone who thinks that they have to "prove it" to the other side before they can do anything are mistaken about what they are reading in this document. That strategy played itself out before GAFCON and is responsible for there being a GAFCON.

The supreme irony here IMO is that TEC et al made their defiance of the Anglican Communion a matter of provincial autonomy. No one can tell us what to do, TEC said, because that's not how the Anglican Communion works. GAFCON's people merely took them up on the idea...and now TEC wants a new rulebook, too late.

 

[ContraMundum]

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

I think that was the point!

BUT- interesting that they still didn't touch on the "other" sacred cow of the modern church (it will go as an "unmentionable" here!). One which most African Anglicans and the Sydney Anglicans wanted to put to paper, from what I heard.

 

[ebia]

Dear ebia,
I think you are missing the point that GAFCON, which I think do represent about a 75% majority of the communion, think it is a clear cut case.

I get that - what I have a problem with is that GAFCON would put into place a principle to deal with this issue without putting into place any practical mechanisms to decide how the same principles would be applied elsewhere. That's a very dangerous thing to do - as it stands it opens to door to anyone rejecting authority for anything simply by claiming the person/body who's authority they want to reject holds to an unbiblical view on something. However clear cut this case may be, before such a precident is created some instruments need to be put in place to decide when else it is applied or it opens Pandora's box.

Yes, although GAFCON was essentially a meeting of the majority as a result of the majority line of a decade ago on same-sex unions being crossed, other lines crossed by those who weren’t there were also stated and described.
A representation of the majority of Anglicans and I would say the majority Christian view, the historic, apostolic one.

I'm not disputing that the majority of Anglican's were represented there - but if that's now the way we decide things it only takes a couple of African Archbishops to get together to make a majority and decide anything. Presumably few actually want it to be sufficient for ++Nigeria, ++Uganda and ++Kenya (or whatever list it takes) to get together, form a "majority of Anglican's" and impose a ruling on the rest. Because that's where you are going if you set the bar as a simple majority of Anglican's to be represented.

No the authority is Christ, Christ in us the hope of glory guided in truth by the Holy Spirit. But as to every parish deciding to submit to the authority of their Bishop, why should they if the Bishop can’t submit to the Communion authority?

Maybe they shouldn't - the trouble is the statements out of GAFCON don't set any such clear determining principal. It may be clear in this case, but it will be applied elsewhere where the case is not clear unless the instruments are well defined before it is applied by anybody to anything.

 

[ebia]

Friends, I get the idea that some of you still don't understand what has happened. In all the talk about article 13 or etc., there seems to be some assumption that this is a call for more debate or future negotiations. It's not.

I'm fully aware of that - but that doesn't stop anyone commenting on the problems it is liable to cause.

To say such things as "Who decides what is orthodox?" or "Who decides when a line has been crossed?"misses the point entirely. The signatories gave the liberal provinces years and years to come around, even partially, and worked through the usual channels. The result was that they were stonewalled and told that there was nothing they could do about it.

But nothing in the statement applies it specifically to this issue - it creates a generalised principle without doing anything to create instruments to decide when it should (and more importantly should not) be applied elsewhere. If it did either (ensure the specificality of what is being done or set into motion debate on how instruments to decide future (and past) other issues would be decided) I would have a lot less problem with it.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear ebia,

I get that - what I have a problem with is that GAFCON would put into place a principle to deal with this issue without putting into place any practical mechanisms to decide how the same principles would be applied elsewhere.

Then you haven’t got it, if it’s a clear cut case they don’t have to put any mechanisms into place, the whole has to fall in line and if its too much for any individual they could considered leaving.

That's a very dangerous thing to do - as it stands it opens to door to anyone rejecting authority for anything simply by claiming the person/body who's authority they want to reject holds to an unbiblical view on something.

On the contrary the opposite, its dangerous having clear cut unbiblical views being proposed and expecting them to be accepted.

I'm not disputing that the majority of Anglican's were represented there - but if that's now the way we decide things it only takes a couple of African Archbishops to get together to make a majority and decide anything.

Then you haven’t understood what GAFCON is, nor what the majority consists of, nor the clear cut case of scripture.

 

[norbie]

Dear Phinehas2, you are very, very wrong to call a handful of African bishops the majority.
Whoever established GAFCON has a lot to answere for, and need our prayer to find the way back to God.

 

[TomUK]

Dear Phinehas2, you are very, very wrong to call a handful of African bishops the majority.
Whoever established GAFCON has a lot to answere for, and need our prayer to find the way back to God.

How on earth do you suggest they have drifted from God?

 

[Albion]

Dear Phinehas2, you are very, very wrong to call a handful of African bishops the majority.

What he said was that they represent the majority of Anglicans, a fact that cannot be disputed.

That's different from saying that they represent the majority of the world's Anglican bishops -- which wouldn't be a particularly meaningful statistic, IMO, considering that Episcopalian [USA] bishops, who represent only about 2% of the world's Anglicans, are as plentiful in the Communion as are Italians in the College of Cardinals.

Whoever established GAFCON has a lot to answere for, and need our prayer to find the way back to God.

"find the way back to God?"

You must have had steam billowing out of your ears when you wrote that. Hopefully, you've cooled down by now.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Norbie,

Dear Phinehas2, you are very, very wrong to call a handful of African bishops the majority.

And you need to re-read the posts as you are very wrong in suggesting I said that. Sure the Africans contributed largely.

Whoever established GAFCON has a lot to answere for, and need our prayer to find the way back to God.

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.