Updated again Tuesday
The Church Times reports on the GAFCON IV meeting held in Kigali this week thus: Gafcon meeting in Kigali rejects all existing forms of Anglican authority.
Here is the full text of the communiqué issued by GAFCON today. Some information on the process of its construction is over here.
Lambeth Palace has issued Lambeth Palace statement on GAFCON IV Kigali Commitment.
Full Text of Archbishop Beach’s Address to GAFCON IV
REJOICING TO BE SAFE HARBOUR – ANiE response and endorsement of the 2023 Kigali Commitment
CEEC publishes response to GAFCON IV statement. This concludes with these words (emphasis added):
….Given that about 45% of the General Synod has clearly articulated the conviction that the proposals of the bishops are unacceptable, urgent consideration needs to be given to a form of good differentiation involving structural re-organisation without theological compromise. Following this path could prevent the unity of the Church of England being torn apart in the same way that the Communion has been.
Church Times: ‘We are not the weirdos’: English conservatives welcome Gafcon support
“It grieves the Holy Spirit and us that the leadership of the Church of England is determined to bless sin.”
What hubris to presume to speak for the Holy Spirit!
That’s the nub of it!
Doesn’t make them wrong though…
Doesn’t make them right, either
Is it any greater hubris than for ++Justin to pronounce that government policies on illegal entry across the Channel will not withstand the judgement of God?
Justin Welby is no longer the first amongst equals in the assembly of Primates.
No amount of disdain from progressives can disguise either the reality or the gravity of this development.
Do you think the Jesus as described in the Gospels would see the ‘gravity’ of the political development, or would He weep for His LGBT children in countries like Uganda who suffer persecution from the atmosphere primates like these create?
A world wide communion of Anglicans has publicly named the radical proposals being developed by English Bishops as blasphemous.
That is the word they use in their statement.
Those bishops and the people who support them are being called to turn back from a path leading to catastrophe for them as individuals.
It is impossible to construe a more serious situation.
‘It is impossible to construe a more serious situation.’
Really? I’m not having any difficulty construing situations that are a lot more serious than that.
Have you actually read the Kigali statement ?
It charges the English Bishops with blasphemy.
What exactly do you think is more serious than that ?
“What exactly do you think is more serious than that?” Violence among peoples across the globe, civil war in numerous countries, leading to death, misery, and famine. Large countries attacking small countries, or threatening to attack small countries — because they can. Violence towards, and suppression of, women by men, across the planet. Attacks on GLBT people in various African nations solely because they do not fit within the political and religious leaders’ sense of what is “moral”. The growing effort by conservatives of all three Abrahamic religions to impose their will on other members of those faiths and entire… Read more »
You clearly do not know the meaning of the word blasphemy.
That charge gets thrown around quite a bit in the gospels. Usually, it’s not accurate, and has more to say about the accuser than the accused.
That is rather like saying the word “cancer” gets thrown around a lot.
Both words have a real and very serious meaning.
Your generalisation to the effect the charge is usually “not accurate and has more to say about the accuser” has no biblical basis.
You are simply saying what you want to believe is true.
Peter, you may have noticed, as I have, that several other people have expressed agreement with Tim. You might want to reflect on this.
I am genuinely unclear as to the point you are making. Are you saying the word blasphemy is a contested word ? If that is your point, then fair enough.
Please can you look at my original comment (and its clarification to Kate) which is about Kigali.
I am pointing out that a large number of world christian leaders have told the Bishops of the Church of England that they are engaging in blasphemy.
That is not a matter on which people can agree or disagree.
Its just a fact about the Kigali Statement.
No, Peter, for me it is simply your claim that nothing is more serious than the claim that the Kigali statement makes. As others have noted, there are many more serious issues in the world than homosexuality.
If you read Kigali it is about apostasy not same sex attraction.
And is apostasy from what some consider “orthodox” Christianity (and others do not) really the most serious thing confronting the world today?
Jesus tells his followers to love their enemies and turn the other cheek. Why is it not apostasy for a Christian to kill another human being, but it is apostasy for a clergy person to say a prayer of blessing over the individuals who are in a same-sex union (not over the union itself)?
You know perfectly well apostasy has a specific meaning. Murder is an abomination but is still different.
Kigali asserts that Justin Welby has abandoned his responsibility to proclaim and defend orthodoxy. That is apostasy and he had taken his bishops with him.
You obviously reject the charge.
However, what is achieved by obfuscation as to what is actually being said by Kigali ?
Peter, I’m very sorry, but if the god you believe in thinks that allowing clergy of the Church of England, not to marry gay people, not even to ask God’s blessing on their union without calling it a marriage, but simply to ask God’s blessing on the individual people who are in these relationships – if your god thinks this is more serious than (for instance) churches blessing wars in which Christians kill each other because their countries say they are enemies, or a world economic system which rewards rich countries and keeps the majority of the world in poverty,… Read more »
You are being unreasonable.
I have not said anything at all regarding the litany of evil which you list and effectively claim I view with indifference.
Tim, I have no wish at all to antagonise you. I do not post on this site with such a reprehensible purpose.
Kigali has happened. I think they are right, but even if I thought they were wrong I would want to understand what they are actually saying. That is all.
Peter, I am not being unreasonable. You are the one who said you could not construe any situation more serious than this. I am simply indicating that if that is true, I’m having difficulty recognizing the God who has that list of priorities as bearing much resemblance to the God revealed to us in Jesus.
If you would like to withdraw your statement about there being no situation more serious than this, I’m happy to withdraw my comment.
Your god? I thought the issue was the factual rendering of what happened at Kigali and the language being used there by them. Lots of charges were brought against Jesus at his trial. No witnesses agreed. When he spoke of the Son of Man coming on the clouds, he committed ‘blasphemy’ and was brought to Pilate to be put to death. What I heard Peter saying was that this kind of language is very serious. I did not hear him ranking things. His rhetorical question meant to underscore the seriousness of their charge. You could of course charge them with… Read more »
“What I heard Peter saying was that this kind of language is very serious.
I did not hear him ranking things. His rhetorical question meant to underscore the seriousness of their charge.
”
“A world wide communion of Anglicans has publicly named the radical proposals being developed by English Bishops as blasphemous….
.
It is impossible to construe a more serious situation.”
That last sentence sounds a lot like “ranking things” to me.
Christopher, Peter stated that he could not construe any situation as more serious than this. I find that a shocking statement. If the God he believes in truly feels that there is no situation more serious than African bishops breaking communion with the official Anglican Communion, I am truly having difficulty recognizing that God as the one revealed to us in Jesus. My daughter is a lesbian in a same-sex marriage. To claim that God is more upset about her marriage and family situation than, say, children being kidnapped and forced to become child soldiers is inconceivable to me as… Read more »
I did not hear that being at issue.
Grace and Peace.
He was commenting on the language of blasphemy. I would agree that this is very serious language. Theologically, it can bring a death sentence; and did.
This is simply a factual account of what Kigali has said.
You are of course free to take issue with that, and vehemently, and so forth.
But I fail to see why a comment about what happened in Kigali warrants intimations of apostasy in its wake, directed at the one who made the comment.
In the Gospels, Jesus’ only use of the word ‘blasphemy’ is in a very stern warning about the danger of seeing a work of the Holy Spirit and calling it the work of the devil. In other words, it’s not about calling a bad thing good, but calling a good thing bad. Think about that.
On the other four occasions it’s used, it’s the Pharisees and Sadducees accusing Jesus of blasphemy.
‘You are simply saying what you want to believe is true.’
No I’m not. Do a word search on Bible Gateway and you will see it’s true.
You make the logical fallacy of arguing the irrelevant conclusion.
yes, there is.
your child could be persecuted, harassed, and even murdered, if they were gay and lived in one of such paradises of orthodoxy.
so, YES, it is VERY possible to construe a more serious situation. A real one. Not this fantasy of ignorance of yours.
As the Jesus of the gospels – and certainly the Jesus of history – seems to have been an orthodox 1st-century Palestinian Jew, I suspect he’d have been entirely unsympathetic to the LGBT agenda.
I think it is possible to argue that as a Galilean Jew, who spent his youth and early adult life in Nazareth, 4km away from Sepphoris, he might have been heavily influenced by Greco-Roman and other cultures, and exposed to a wide range of differing views which influenced his subsequent teaching. We should not assume unmodified Jewish orthodoxy. In fact the gospel message shows a constant challenge to such orthodoxy around gender and sexuality issues.
An orthodox 1st-century Palestinian Jew who declared all foods, clean, ate and drank with outcasts and sinners, and said that many would come from Gentile nations to feast in the kingdom with the patriarchs, while many orthodox 1st-century Palestinian Jews would not.
Well said Tim.
The Jesus of the Gospels clearly elevated love above obedience to the Law.
Clap clap.
Actually he equated love to obedience. Jn 14:15
Orthodox? Hardly.
I read the Gospels as Jesus calling out the religious authorities of the day for their hypocrisy, wading through the weeds (to borrow a phrase from a Jewish rabbi I know) instead of seeing the larger social justice message, and theological strangulation.
Yes, and disdain is also not *Thinking* Anglican.
This is a time for sober conversation. I believe the ABC also knows this. He has said this clearly.
“I believe the ABC also knows this. He has said this clearly.” Except the story is about what some schismatics who do not want to reckon with the instruments of Communion. Classic misdirection.
When the dust settles on this, what you call ‘misdirection’ will prove to be direction.
Oh there is no question that the review of the instruments of Communion could go more or less in the direction favoured by those who like yourself have long opposed same sex marriage in the church and supported the Anglican Covenant. The subject in the articles in the ‘chapeau’ to this thread is the dismissal by GAFCON/ACNA of the instruments of Communion in reaction to the C of E’s new position re an option for blessing same sex marriages. The efforts by Welby (supported tacitly at least by the bishops at Lambeth 2022, Lambeth Call: Anglican Identity and now by… Read more »
The difference is the commitment to a covenant-styled ecclesiology as espoused by the GSFA. I do not believe that Welby will be opposed to this direction of travel; he says as much, when he speaks of a review of the Instruments. The tension will remain between GAFCON and GSFA on this matter, but it also true that GAFCON appears to want to style itself a ‘movement’ and not an entity majoring in polity (they declare that the domain of GSFA). What you opine is ‘misdirection’ I see as the present direction of travel, and that includes the ABC and the… Read more »
I don’t share a lot of Welby’s stated views as presented in his Presidential address to ACC; but he expresses his views on the possible future of The Communion quite clearly there. Will it work out for him? Who knows; but there is no need to to read his mind or rely merely on what others ‘believe’ he would like. His views are very different than yours, certainly less dogmatic, instance these comments of his to ACC. “This is one of the basic reasons why as well as being interdependent as provinces we are also autonomous. There is no good… Read more »
Rod, when you use language like ‘dogmatic’ you move into a realm I am not interested in. You will search in vain for any labeling of you. It is puerile and belongs to blog addiction.
Can we please stick with something akin to sober discussion?
You do not think the Welby we saw in Ghana is the real Welby. You are entitled to your view and I respect that.
May the Risen Lord be the Lord over all our discourse.
“You do not think the Welby we saw in Ghana is the real Welby.” Actually I have been referencing what the man is on record as saying, in his own words. I’m not much for piety in debates I’m afraid. I tend toward the impious, Perhaps to a fault. -cheerio -Rod
I do not refer to you as the parochial Nova Scotian with an affectation re: Lonergan. It isn’t piety that prevents that but simple courtesy. God bless you. Forgive that genuine ‘piety.’
But Chris, I am a parochial Nova Scotian. The place is my cultural parochia. As sings singing ranger Hank Snow, “Nova Scotia is my sanctuary and I love her so.” Like any good ‘parish’ it has shaped me for better or worse. I’m an artifact of culture as empirically rather than normatively perceived–as Lonergan might say. Indeed the collapse of ‘catholic’ culture as normative characterizes many of the debates in the church at the moment. Speaking of which, I tend to approach theological issues somewhat like the way a good shop steward in Cape Breton approaches economics. It’s about that… Read more »
Thank you, and I would especially echo this final sentiment. I think that any forum always benefits from a wide diversity of opinion, and I am mindful of the courtesy that Prof. Seitz has shown over the years, as well as his great erudition and the very considerable experience (including pastoral experience) that he has derived from teaching at the highest level at a number of universities, including a couple of the most prestigious of all academic divinity schools. If his views are not always aligned with the current of opinion in this forum then that is, of itself, a… Read more »
Thank you for your kind Christian response. My wife and I refused to let a 6 year struggle with LAM disease daunt our love and life in Christ. I have never met a braver person. She was transplanted with 2 days to live in Paris. Covid then killed her. Froghole, I have found your highly researched and non personal contributions to be a kind of gold standard here. I am sure I am not alone. I do not know who you are and I am proud to know you through what you contribute. If you are in France on your… Read more »
Many thanks indeed for this, although I am a mere autodidact. I am extremely sorry to learn that you both had such a protracted and brutal ordeal. How utterly awful. One of the measures of the imbecility and/or insanity of my pilgrimage is that I am far closer to France (or Benelux or Germany) than I am to the most of the places where I am now worshipping. Indeed, I have a relatively clear view of Cap Gris-Nez as I write (from St Margaret’s Bay, Kent). Last Sunday I was in north Lincolnshire and, in the afternoon, in North Yorkshire;… Read more »
Christopher I rather fear that telling the world you will no longer comment here using one name but then re-appearing using a pseudonym is probably THE classic symptom of blog addiction. I am with Rod in his assessment of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s real views and statements. As I think I have reported before, following a very specifically worded question in General Synod it was clear that Justin Welby was not in favour of resurrecting the Covenant that you remain so wedded to. His remarks at the Lambeth Conference last year were also indicative of his own direction of travel… Read more »
Mr G, From Lambeth: “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.” As I have said above, the GSFA has sought to keep all lines of communication open. They were in attendance at Lambeth (cf GAFCON). Only after that event have they been clearer in the call for review. Immediately after that, the… Read more »
On your obsession with names. I have no idea who you are and that suits me fine. You could sign your name ‘the Man in the Moon’ and it would be OK and would alter nothing about the content of your remarks. I was once ACI, and ACI is no more. I like a modicum of privacy due to public roles I have had, and after the tragic death of my wife. With the declension of the AC, I follow suit. Twelve step has a nice expression and I commend it to you. ‘Stay out of X’s hoola-hoop.’ Stick with… Read more »
Christopher I fear it is your obsession with names. You were clearly Christopher Seitz when you proclaimed that you were ceasing to contribute here and said goodbye. Then you re appeared as your current (desperately thin) disguise. My point was that it was you who seem rather addicted to blogs – something you accused others of. But as another commentator here earned me, I waste my time trying to have any discussion with you. You continually shift the subject and never answer a question.
If you like a modicum of privacy then just stay private. It’s that easy.
If a person tells you their wife has died -as Christopher has done above – you need to pull your punches and extend the hand of peace and grace.
Thanks Peter. Christopher shared that news some time ago and I extended my sincere condolences at that point.
I’d like to do that. I used a private name. For some reason, you like to de-closet people. That is conduct I do not understand.
Can you just stay on topic and leave my personal life alone?
I have no idea who you are. That’s OK.
Bit of a straw man there: I’m not sure how many ‘progressives’ will be ‘hiding’ the reality or the gravity of this with their ‘disdain’. It is of course serious and it is deeply sad. But……self-important religious leaders will do self-important religious things. Meanwhile, civilians in war zones are bombed out of homes and lives, refugees live hopelessly in camps or drown seeking a better future, people starve or abandon homes as ecosystems are denuded, others are trafficked into economic or sexual slavery or paid a pittance for their labour, still others tortured, imprisoned and killed without fair trial; and… Read more »
You say the claim that progressives will be disdainful is a “straw man”and then immediately assert that “self important leaders do self important things”
Can you not see your own inconsistency ?
I’m afraid I can’t though I think I know what you’re driving at. Please be more explicit so I can engage!
Bravo, sir. You saved me saying it. Will we please look outwards, at the suffering world to which we have been called to be a light, and stop squabbling over introverted dogmas and ideological doctrines? We can argue over beliefs and interpretations in Heaven – the people in Syria, Ukraine and other places ned help – and the reality of God’s care for them – NOW!
“Justin Welby is no longer the first amongst equals in the assembly of Primates.” Good, if it means the end of “The assembly of Primates”. It began as a chit chat gentleman’s club. It morphed, more recently, into an Anglican ‘curia’. Clericalism seems to be one of the enduring features of Anglicanism. It’s one of the reasons The Communion it is what it is at present. Colonial lag.
no it doesn’t.
it means ‘orthodox’ anglican honchos don’t get to blackmail the Communion anymore. Be gone, stay gone, return whenever you remember that you kicked yourself out.
I’m not much of a fan of ‘orthodoxy’. Besides what is called ‘orthodoxy’ is really a form of neo-orthodoxy. Moving on, you may be interested in these comments by Canadian Primate Linda Nicholls on the subject of the Global South Primates.
https://anglicanjournal.com/global-south-primates-call-for-anglican-reset-not-likely-to-mean-major-split-nicholls/
Peter, if you are a Christian isn’t distinguishing right from wrong rather more important than corporate structures ? The Ugandan Parliament has just passed legislation imposing the death penalty on our Gay sisters and brothers in Uganda. It has done this at the instigation of Christian Conservatives (Christian Fascists might be a more appropriate description). I couldn’t find a recent statement from the Anglican Church of Uganda but certainly it has made appalling homophobic statements in the past. Unless the Church of Uganda expresses it’s clear opposition to this distrusting anti gay legislation, the Church of England should sever all… Read more »
Totally agree with this, David.
And me. Would the United Nations be better placed to denounce this wickedness than Canterbury? And are they more likely to be listened to?
As do I.
Amen and thank you!
You speak for me, too.
You have completely ignored what I said.
You seek instead to manipulate and demand I say what you insist I must say.
You have carried out a mendacious piece of mis direction.
What an achievement – the break up of the Anglican Communion. How this must grieve our Blessed Lord’s heart – the one true Saviour who prayed in Gethsemane that they may all be one.
The break-up of the Anglican Communion sadly happened some time ago.
It is hard to perceive what the theological reality of being in union with the Archbishop of Uganda and Foley Beach implies.
Complete with a photo of chairman Foley Beach, clearly American ACNA culture warriors are solidly embedded. According to the article and contra Lambeth 2022, they don’t want the instruments of Communion, revised or otherwise. I reckon they want a ‘don’t say gay’ Communion. Don’t know about anywhere else but in the Canadian context they will be less successful than ‘Pastafarians’. All this dueling bible quoting reminds me of something an Irish Dominican told me decades ago i.e. the bible is actually one of the things that divides Christians– with each of the hundreds of denominations and sects claiming to the… Read more »
I for one would be delighted if the Anglican Communion disappears. Please let the Church of England be once more the church of the people of England, and let it be free of the constraints of a load of backward-looking and oppression-enforcing clergy in some other parts of the world. I am happy for them to do as they wish in their own societies, but expect us to do what is appropriate in ours.
‘Delight’ is not a feeling I can subscribe to in this circumstance, disappointing and frustrating as the church in general, and on the issue of sexuality in particular, can be. The trajectory of your comment could land it in a kind of Church of ‘little’ England. The legacy of colonialism and a grappling with post-colonialism is throughout The Communion–here, there, everywhere, including the UK. Also, I’m surprised to learn there may be no “opresssion-enforcing” clergy in the C of E?
Of course, there are oppression-enforcing clergy in the C of E, but I think that the Church should have to follow the same anti-discrimination laws that any other employer has to follow (this has already long been the case for the national churches in the Nordic countries, for example). If this happens, then the C of E will be able to become an ethical employer at last. I’m not quite sure I understand your point about colonialism. Anglicanism was not imposed anywhere outside Britain (except Ireland) by the government, was it? Indeed successive governments did their best to keep missionaries… Read more »
“Anglicanism was not imposed anywhere outside Britain (except Ireland) by the government, was it?” You mention India: there were periods when the government was keen on proselytization. For example, during Shore’s governor-generalship (1793-98; he was later the first president of the British & Foreign Bible Society), and during the 1820s-30s when the Grant family were a leading influence in the court of directors, and – in 1830-34 – were in charge of the board of control. These periods of enthusiasm oscillated with periods during which ‘toleration’ was encouraged (when the Dundas family had command of the board of control, in… Read more »
Thanks for all these interesting details! It’s a complex history. Regarding India, there wasn’t any Anglican bishop in the country at all until Calcutta in the 1820s, was there? Which, given that the British were in India from the 17th c, is surely an indication of not imposing Anglicanism, if it took them 200 years to even establish one diocese? I think the salient point regarding post-colonialism (and what Douglas Murray justly calls the Left’s current obsessive self-laceration over it) is that independence means you do your own thing without us interfering; and conversely we do our own thing without… Read more »
Re the Calcutta bishopric, the tale is as follows. The HEIC’s charter was due for renewal in 1793; Charles Grant and William Wilberforce campaigned to include a condition that John Company permit and encourage missions under the supervision of local bishops; the court was very unenthusiastic, and Henry Dundas (president of the board) withdrew his support under attack from C. J. Fox. In 1802-05 the newly established CMS (Grant again) managed to inveigle Henry Martyn into Company employment. In 1805 Claudius Buchanan, another fervent HEIC chaplain, published a scheme for an Indian establishment, but this fell through in the wake… Read more »
A comment on your first point is below; but with regard to the issue of colonialism and The Communion and the current brouhaha over sexuality, the picture is complex. It is more complicated than haggling over the details of where or whether or not Anglicanism was imposed. I too would like to recommend a recently read book: Postcolonial Theology: Finding God and Each Other Amidst the Hate. Author Robert Heaney is an Anglican from the North of Ireland. He treats several contexts beginning with but not limited to Ireland. Archbishop Welby in his presidential address to the most recent Anglican… Read more »
oops. Cut and paste glitch. Here is the link.
https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/speaking-writing/speeches/archbishop-canterburys-presidential-address-acc-18
Here in Canada the Anglican Church collaborated with the government in the residential schools project, in which hundred of thousands of indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and sent hundreds of miles away to boarding schools where they were robbed of their language, culture and spirituality, and subjected to physical and in some cases sexual abuse. This began a cycle of multi-generational trauma which continues to today. The government’s agenda was to ‘kill the Indian in the child’ and assimilate them into the dominant culture. The church’s agenda, I suspect, was forced evangelisation (which is an abomination, and… Read more »
And, even by the early 20th Century, it was difficult for a non-Protestant to gain employment with any Canadian governmental agency and, even if employed, to gain advancement.
I recall a chapter in a left oriented book on Canadian economic policy years ago, the chapter titled: Graduates of St. Francis Xavier University Need Not Apply. lol. St. F.X is my alma mater. The hostility directed at it by some potential employers was because of its connection with the Antigonish Co-operative movement, and the economic theories of Fathers Moses Coady and Jim Tompkins. Alas, St. F.X. has since become a darling of neo-liberal Canadian politicians.
Thanks for responding to Mark with the Canadian schools example Tim. I was going to make exactly the same post but you beat me to it. In the UK we like to persuade ourselves that the sins of colonialism equated mainly to slavery, and because slavery was outlawed quite a long time ago then the more recent UK colonial history was much more benign. But the four horsemen of the colonial apocalypse were slavery, and also disease, theft (of land, wealth and cultural artifacts), and genocide. And although slavery may have been outlawed, British controlled colonial theft and genocide continued… Read more »
Simon, when you say ‘so the Anglican Church was certainly involved’, do you mean ‘the Church of England’? That the Anglican Church of Canada was involved is not a controversial statement.
Many thanks for this (and also to Archdeacon Gillis). I tried to respond to comments about this, and Justin Welby’s Prince Albert speech on a recent thread, but I might have unwittingly and blunderingly transgressed the rules of that particular thread. It does seem that the ACC has proceeded in fits and starts, whilst the Church of England has, until very recently, been almost completely indifferent to this whole issue. There was the promise of rapid action by the ACC further to the Hawthorn Report (1967), the ‘Indians of Canada’ pavilion at Expo 67, the Vancouver ‘Lament for Confederation’, the… Read more »
Thanks, Froghole. I received an honorable mention, so I’d like to offer some comment. In terms of the thread itself and the linked articles at the top, sexuality and sexual expressions are best understood as cultural issues with clerics in a supporting role. The interaction of one culture with another raises obvious issues of power. I understand the push back from provinces in The Communion who feel that the same sex relationships issue is an agenda of liberal provinces being foisted upon them. In The Anglican Church of Canada there is an ongoing ballet in terms of respecting GLBTQ2S rights… Read more »
As Rod has said, the issues are hugely complicated (and I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says above—which won’t surprise him, or anyone else who knows us!!!). I think ‘models’ from elsewhere (eg. NZ) can be helpful, but I think it would be a mistake for us in the ACC to pattern our future on someone else’s model. My two cents’ worth (as a non-indigenous Canadian) is that indigenous Anglicans are moving slowly in the direction of an indigenous church within the ACC, and that many if not most Canadian Anglicans are supportive of that. But speaking for myself… Read more »
Many thanks to both of you for these very interesting insights. I must also apologise to you both for giving my impertinent perspective, which comes from an ocean away: I have tried to educate myself about the history of Canada (which, as you might have noted, is not taught in the UK, with events in Canada seldom being reported in the UK media, and useful books about Canada not being readily available, even in many university libraries). However, I think it is especially important for this blog that you (and others) provide perspectives which are not Anglocentric. Personally, I think… Read more »
Many will agree with you. Provincial autonomy is a cardinal legal principle of the Anglican Communion (AC). In many ways not much has changed. GAFCON is not new, but they (together with their English flunky advisors) have drawn a line against the latest developments in the CofE. The anger and vitriol of ++Uganda, who is to be prayed for in the Anglican Cycle of Prayer on Sunday, is palpable. It will be ironical that the AC has finally fallen apart under the leadership of an Archbishop of Canterbury who has made it the absolute priority of his ministry. But the consequences for the Church… Read more »
Without agreeing with your particular take on where the AC now is (‘cardinal legal principle’?) one can agree with the general tone and substance of your comment. This is time for serious evaluation and sober thinking.
I believe Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher presided over much of the formal constituting of the provinces and provincial autonomy was one of the principles on which he worked.
I think in the case of Australia the constitution also has a high level of diocesan autonomy to protect the particular ethos of Sydney. This owed much to Fisher.
I guess that the model adopted by Fisher was pretty much that of the Commonwealth under the statute of Westminster, but the Commonwealth of c. 1950-55 (when the process of granting autonomy started in earnest) was very different to that of 1965, by which time British influence had largely evaporated. The authority of Lambeth deflated almost as rapidly as that of the crown, and as Philip Murphy has noted, by the 1960s the model was (usually very nearly) straight-to-republic, often with the active connivance of Whitehall (which wanted to turn away from the costs and obligations of empire and towards… Read more »
This is an important point. It’s now obvious that Synod was duped into thinking that giving the Communion a voice in the Canterbury CNC would somehow preserve Canterbury’s Communion role. (Or even that this was a worthy goal.) Now that Cantuar himself is acknowledging that the Instruments can and should change, and that a process is under way to determine whether Canterbury’s automatic role is even appropriate, Synod should reconsider its change to the CNC composition. If Canterbury’s Communion role is not automatic, then why should the rest of the Communion have any role in choosing the Primate of All… Read more »
Now they’ve definitively enacted their schism can we stop pandering to their bigotry?
Well said!
Amen!
Agreed.
Yes!
Amen and amen!
From the Lambeth Palace statement, “…at the recent Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Ghana …no changes to the formal structures of the Anglican Communion can be made unless they are agreed upon by the Instruments of Communion.” The sub-text in provinces like Canada is that without support and approval of our General Synod which will require support from laity, clergy, bishops (3 houses) nothing binding here will take hold. Ultimately provincial subsidiarity will carry the day for each province—at least in synodically governed ones.
If by “provincial subsidiarity” you mean provincial independence, then I agree.
Part of the problem of the past 20 years is that people have been sold a bill of goods when it comes to Communion ecclesiology.
Decades ago, conservative provinces demanded that liberal provinces be disciplined. No one made it clear that in the Communion, meaningful “discipline,” and any form of top-down theological rulemaking, is simply impossible.
No one made it clear that the Communion is too meaningless to be fought over.
And now, with expectations unmanaged….
The term has a variety of applications. Ironically perhaps , it is used in Catholic social teaching even though Catholic ecclesiology is highly centralized. It has been suggested to me that here in the Anglican Church of Canada our stance on same sex marriage in the church is a form of subsidiarity i.e. each decides whether or not allow SSM liturgies in church. One diocese does, another does not. It is a saw off as a result of a failure (thanks to the order of bishops) to agree on a national Marriage Canon standard on the issue. My point in… Read more »
‘These [GAFCON] Primates represent the overwhelming majority (estimated at 85%) of Anglicans worldwide.’
The premise of this statement is that all Anglicans in these dioceses know, understand and agree with their bishop’s views. This is clearly an absurd, indeed a dishonest proposition.
I suspect the statistics e.g. In Nigeria etc are much inflated, and church membership pretty fluid too.
They are indeed. And the best evidence suggests that both the Church of Nigeria and the Church of Uganda are rapidly losing ‘market share’ at home. As a consequence, it is not difficult to see much of their interest in the position of the Church of England in respect of blessing same-sex unions as an attempt to reverse their domestic fortunes.
Members of the Conference Statement Committee:
Chair – Rt Rev Dr Michael Stead – Australia
Ven Kara Hartley – Australia
Rev Canon Dr Mark Thompson – Australia
Rev Anne Kennedy – Anglican Church in North America
Rt Rev Sammy Morrison – Chile
Rev Tim Anderson – Ireland
Rev Andrew Symes – Anglican Network in England
Rt Rev Dapo Asaju – Nigeria
Rev Canon Dr John Senyonyi – Uganda
Rt Rev Alfred Olwa – Uganda
Secretariat
Mrs Felicity Stead – Secretary
Rev Nigel Fortescue – Secretary
Anglican clericalism writ large. You can break up over sex, but some things never change.
It would be more accurate to describe the 5 Australian members (5 of 12!) as “Sydney”.
Three members from Sydney served on the drafting committee. One of the others kept the minutes and had no voice. The ther pt the room using with water etc. There were a lot of Australians volunteering at Gafcon. I will publish on the forces behind the statement.
If the claim by these people is that they are “not weirdos”, then they are deluded. If you want to reduce the Church of England to a fringe cult laughted at by most and feared by those they would wish to harm, put Andrew Symes up as its front man. The “we are not weirdos” story is basically people who want to leave the Church of England, because they do not agree with the positions it corporately adopts, but are too comfortable in their Synod posts and the social clout it gives them. They are the Jeremy Corbyns of the… Read more »
A number of organisations based in the UK have as the focus of their brief and remit financial and practical support of Anglican Provinces in other parts of the world. I have links to a couple in particular. Such organisations need to be able to define ‘who counts as Anglican’. A frequently used definition is that to count as Anglican in these terms the Province/Diocese needs to be ‘in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury’. I am trying to work out if the GAFCON statement means that those who have signed up to it count themselves as ‘out of Communion… Read more »
An interview with Archbishop Foley Beach makes for disturbing reading, in which he refuses to condemn even the most violent and hate-filled treatment of LGBTQ+ people on the grounds that this somehow reflects African culture, which seems pretty contemptuous of the people of a continent where many have championed human rights. It also indicates that his version of ‘traditional’ and biblical Christianity ditches central New Testament teaching on love and treating others as one would want to be treated, in addition to several of the Commandments in the Hebrew Bible and the repeated calls for justice.
We should not dismiss the possibility that there is a very silent majority in the Global South regarding human sexuality. People’s challenges in life as human beings and -if you wish- as sinners, are more and less the same regardless of the economic, legal, and social level of development in each country. For example, in Mexico, the Anglican Church of Mexico works in the midst of a wider society that is open-minded, while its priests are fearful of expressing anything that the shy and spineless bishops don’t want to hear regarding sexual diversity.
The break up of the communion is inevitable because there is no real agreement as to its function. Is it a Curia which is what GAFCON appears to want, a federation that Welby wants or something akin to the Commonwealth with a very vague sense of shared life? Coming at this from my own ConEv position I don’t really think GAFCON is a credible organisation and actually believe national churches are autonomous, therefore it cannot “bind us” because the contexts are all so different. Whilst others of my ilk disagree I feel it’s a convenient way to argue for a… Read more »
Anthony Archer and I are unlikely to agree on very much at all. We do however agree on one important point. Kigali matters.
Pretty much everybody on this site does not accept the theological perspective of Gafcon. That is obvious.
We are still all better off recognising that Kigali has changed Anglicanism.
Peter please do read Primate Linda Nichols as Rod Gillis has linked to above. i certainly do not think that Kigali has changed anything. It’s a particular grouping that is self appointed and self referencing, wanting to attempt a kind of coup. Their statement is full of inflammatory language that I find quite hilarious at one level, I don’t think any of this has anything to do with the Gospel. It’s about power. And it’s just nasty. There is no grace. No love. No peace. None of the fruits of the spirit are evident. i wish them well. But they… Read more »
The Instruments of the Communion no longer function.
Saying nothing has changed is ignoring reality.
It’s ignoring reality to say that one conservative grouping can tell the Anglican Communion what is or isn’t the case. GAFCON has no official place in the Communion. The Lambeth Conference has. If this group wanted a voice in the future shape of the Communion, Lambeth was where they needed to be.
You are stating an opinion, not a reality.
Do you accept that the majority of the provinces in the Anglican Communion have rejected the Instruments of Communion ?
There are how many Provinces in the AC? 41 or 42?
How many provinces went to Lambeth Conference? All but 3 of them.
How many went to Kigali? 10?
I don’t know how you reckon the majority have rejected the instruments of communion. I’m afraid that is just wishful thinking.
I asked you for your opinion on the position of the provinces. Please do not misuse my question to imply I cannot do simple arithmetic. Are you claiming 39 provinces support Welby ??
If you think 39 provinces will be attending the next Lambeth, well good luck with that one, Andrew.
Peter my opinion is based on the facts available. The facts are as I have stated above. They speak for themselves. I don’t have an opinion on the next Lambeth – it’s 9 years away and there will be a different Archbishop by then. I think there is little point in speculation about that. But I know, as a matter of fact, that GAFCON is not one of the Instruments of Communion. And they have no official place in the Anglican Communion. So what they say has a matter of interest, but isn’t related to anything other than the opinion… Read more »
You speak of the “Instruments of Communion” as if they were constitutional ordinances. You declare anything else as just “a matter of opinion”. That is an entirely confected notion of the Communion.
It is not a jurisdiction. It has no constitution. It has no structure or authority that supersedes the assembly of believers.
It exists only because of the bonds of trust and fellowship within that assembly.
Welby is no longer welcome in that assembly.
The Church of England is no longer part of the Communion.
“The Church of England is no longer part of the Communion.”
I’m afraid this is just playground games of the “you can’t be in my gang because my gang is better than yours” variety. Please don’t make GAFCON look any more ridiculous than it has already made itself look.
That’s a bit unnecessary, Andrew. I do not think and would never suggest you or those who share your views are ridiculous. I’m trying to have a serious discussion with you. There is a fundamental division between those provinces and churches which would historically have regarded themselves as part of the Anglican Communion. I would accept what is obvious which is that scale matters. A few people do not (generally speaking) alter the reality of a large number of people. However, in the case of a Communion (as opposed to a nation state or company or other corporate entity) the… Read more »
Peter I’m sorry but your claim that the CofE is no longer part of the Anglican Communion is ridiculous because it doesn’t stand up to any kind of factual analysis.
If there is really no such thing as The Communion apart from the fellowship of believers then what is all the fuss about? GAFCON was by no means a comprehensive gathering of Anglican believers and actually included some CofE members. Were they not part of the gathering?
Let’s please stick to facts.
A really exact statement of the facts would be that the historic Anglican Communion has ceased to exist.
You are correct that the English Bishops have not been expelled.
What is that you believe continues ? It’s a genuine question. I’m not trying to score points.
“A really exact statement of the facts would be that the historic Anglican Communion has ceased to exist.” Peter I can’t for the life of me understand how that is a really exact statement. It’s an opinion that you share with some other conservatives. Has the Anglican Communion office said it has ceased to exist? Have all the members of the Provinces that attended Kigali? I very much doubt they all think that. There is still work on-going following the Lambeth Conference. Do all those working know that the Anglican Communion has ceased to exist? I am afraid I just… Read more »
Andrew, you are kinder towards this group than am I, having lived through the ructions ACNA and its supporters inflicted on the Episcopal Church. They have mostly lost, but they stirred up a lot of passion and hostility, while frittering away resources that could have been used for good.
Not in South Carolina, for the record. I would welcome the statistics on decline in TEC, as a control on ‘mostly lost.’ How much did TEC spend on litigation, speaking of frittering away resources? Millions upon millions.
I say this as a member of TEC. There have been no winners.
There never were going to be any winners. So why did the ACNA invent itself? There was no reason to do so.
South Carolina is simply embarrassing. Mark Lawrence promised he was not going to take the diocese out of TEC. He was simply a bully. Things now seem to be rather more peaceful, thankfully, since he is gone.
Peaceful because the TEC diocese lost virtually all the parishes and needs to negotiate with the former diocese over churches and properties they cannot maintain. The two Bishops both realize this. Peaceful because the Presiding Bishop at present has refused to continue the policies of his predecessor, praise God. No one knows how many millions were spent on litigation. This led to drastic staff reductions at 815 Second Avenue. Peaceful because–state law being what it is re: trusts and judicial precedent in respect of church property–TEC realized it might lose more than it already had done in Illinois, Texas and… Read more »
Kigali usurps an authority it does not have and expresses a version of Protestantism which, although it has a place within Anglicanism, has never reflected a consensus within it. It says the Bible “does not need to be supplemented” – but the doctrine of the Trinity (for example) is not enunciated in the Bible and is a supplement reflected in the later creeds. It refers more than once to the “sufficiency” of the Bible, but this sola scriptura position is directly contrary to the prima scriptura position essential to Anglicanism. It is also contrary to the position of the Roman… Read more »
I appreciate your response which is mostly analysis rather than the invective which is usually thrown at me.
I accept more of your analysis than you might expect, at least in the sense that you are basing your view on historical Anglicanism.
I reject entirely your view on the doctrine of marriage, which will not surprise you.
The Instruments of the Communion have ceased to function. I cannot see how less than that can be said.
The instruments of Communion work for the Church in Canada, Mexico, USA, Brazil, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, NZ, Australia, SA, Spain, Central America, England, the Porvoo Churches, Japan, and the Philippines.
You list the small number of provinces not represented at Kigali and ignore the much larger number which were there.
If three quarters of the organs in a person’s body cease responding then that person is in organ failure.
“If three quarters of the organs in a person’s body cease responding then that person is in organ failure.”
If those three quarters do not include the brain, heart and lungs, then there remains hope for life and recovery.
You do know the AC is not an organic unity. There was a delegation from Mexico at Kigali. The people in that delegation do not belong to the Anglican Church of México. If the churches at Kigali have rejected the AC’s instruments of Communion… technically they are leaving the AC (even if by all practical purposes they are continuing the AC elsewhere. This is in practice the reality due mainly to the fact that the churches I mentioned still recognise the instruments of Communion and they still work for them. So, technically those churches remains being the AC, while the… Read more »
And Japan, Korea, Melanesia and the West Indies. Probably Central Africa and West Africa too. There may also be splits within Province’s depending what GAFCON actually comes up with. Undoubtedly there is a split, though you could argue there has effectively been one for a while. We wait on the Kigali dust to settle and what comes next.
Exactly. I mean, come on. We all know since about 2010 that the intention has always been to declare Alexandria (Egypt, not Virginia 😅) the see city for the new universal primate of the continuing Anglican Communion around the Jerusalem Declaration.
Now we are at the point where all that is left for the continuing AC to do is to choose its (Anglican) Archbishop of Alexandria.
As it happens, I have been reading my way through the Trinitarian controversies of the 17th and 18th centuries : how “the doctrine of the Trinity’ could not be proved from Scripture, and how such doctrine could not be proved from Scripture to be required as an article of salvation. [This controversy appears still to be unknown to Anglican clergy – I wonder why] There is still a tension in the 39 Articles between Articles 1 and 6. In practice, the doctrine of the Trinity, supposed to be THE foundation of the Christian faith, and used by Churches Together etc.… Read more »
Many thanks. I have myself been going back through this classic in the last few weeks: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/archetypal-heresy-9780199245918?cc=gb&lang=en# (Maurice Wiles paying considerable attention to the likes of William Whiston, Samuel Clarke and Isaac Newton, whose own Arianism has also recently been dealt with here: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/priest-of-nature-9780199995356?cc=gb&lang=en&). The immense Laocoön-like knots that the Church has got itself into since the 2nd century over the definition of its own deity are a constant reproach to its own coherence, and have continually led to disintegration. If the foci of disintegration have changed more recently, it is arguably because a very uneasy consensus has spread over… Read more »
Hail to thee, o kindred spirit! Not only are the Trinitarian controversies of the 17th and 18th centuries unknown to our modern clergy, but they are ignorant also of the radical re-appraisals of the “Arian” controversies of the 4th century. For quite a few years now, I have been asking clergy about their Biblical, theological and historical studies; and I have been far from being assured of their learning. Frankly, the content of some ordination courses seems abysmally low. Moreover, I have observed that many “relevant” post-ordination and continuing courses have been offered, but little or nothing on foundational doctrines.… Read more »
Indeed: there have been instances in my travels around the country where I have encountered ‘heterodoxy’ emanating from the pulpit, and on occasion it has come from the lips of stipendiary clergy who have attended three year residential courses. Many readers and SSM/NSMs are better informed about the basics than some clergy who have been ground through the residential mill. Shouldn’t those readers be ordained (in order to help boost the provision of worship in neglected areas) and shouldn’t the largely autodidactic SSMs and NSMs be treated with much greater respect? I fear that one of the reasons why certain… Read more »
I know that the term ‘Trinity’ isn’t used in the NT, but surely, the relationship between Father, Son and Spirit is clearly expressed, particularly in various parts of John’s Gospel, chaps 14 – 16, and Acts 2? Or am I being too much of a CECU convert in seeing that as the essential foundation of my faith?
John, Thank you got your question! Where, and how, in the cited places is the Trinity expressed; and what sort of Trinity is it?
Froghole, given your demonstrated research abilities, you may be interested in what is now an old set of articles: National Bulletin on Liturgy: Trinitarian Dimensions of Liturgy. (Vol. 27, no.138, fall 1994). It was published by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. It contains a series of articles by Mary M. Schaefer a R.C. lay scholar who taught liturgy at Atlantic School of Theology, Halifax, NS. Articles include: The Trinity Through the Centuries; The Active Presence of Christ and the Spirit; Trinity Sunday and Its Readings; and others. The latter touches on the distinction between the economical and immanent Trinity… Read more »
Many thanks to you for these references, and to Mr Davies. Most of the literature that I have collected on this subject is quite old (though I read journals like JTS when I have the time), but in response to Mr Davies’s remarks, I would note that I am in agreement with him, but that the manner in which the doctrine came about was acutely problematic and has left considerable scarring. For example, von Harnack remarked (after a discussion of Apollinarism) that “The Church knew what it wanted to do – to unite contradictions; there was not to be two… Read more »
Froghole, you may find the link below of some interest. Neil Ormerod is an Australien Catholic scholar. On a different note, one of my adult children is an atmospheric scientist who works with weather models. My offspring tell me such models have a time limited window for accuracy. By analogy ( only!), philosophical schemes that attempt to ‘model’ the experience of the economical trinity as contained in NT literature, all have a time stamp/historical window. There is a real difference between say, Norman Pittinger (Triune God) and Bernard Lonergan (Road to Nicaea) although my vintage is showing with these references–but… Read more »
Very many thanks for these links! That is most kind of you!
Can you please say how John 14-16 and Acts 2 show a/the Trinity?
Not sure if this reply is directed to me. The texts seem to relate to John Davies’ comment above. However, my unnuanced answer to your question is, this does not show The Trinity in terms of the latter post-biblical classical doctrine of ontologically related ‘persons’. Of the texts referenced here, a portion of one is used in the lections (RCL) for Trinity Sunday i.e. Yr. C John 16: 12-15. However, and this is my practical bias as a preacher grappling with such texts, the text is better described as Christological rather than ‘Trinitarian’. Here Jesus is at the centre revealing… Read more »
Sorry – my reply was indeed meant for John Davies (might we hear from him?) – but thank you for commenting! Yes, many alleged Trinitarian texts are better described, as you say, as Christological texts. Such texts do teach that there is an intimate and revelatory relationship between God and Jesus, but not that Jesus is “GOD”. in the same sense as that the Father is “GOD”. There MAY be some texts where “theos/god” is applied to Jesus in the New Testament; but they are not above seven or eight (see Arthur W Wainwright, “The Trinity in the New Testament”,… Read more »
These seven or eight texts, however, present problems of variant readings and/or differing interpretations. BUT, there are other variant-free and unambiguous texts. For example, John 17;3 is clear that it is the FATHER who is THE ONLY TRUE GOD. And 1 Timothy 2:5 is clear that there is ONE GOD, and ONE MEDIATOR between GOD and MEN – (the) MAN Christ Jesus. In all my reading of Trinitarianism, I find that there is a great deal of unexamined and mere citation of the disputed “Trinitarian” texts. But barely a mention of those clear “Unitarian” texts. And, tried though I have,… Read more »
Hallo, it’s me again. I think I’ve said before, I’m not a professional theologian, so don’t understand all the nuances and terminology – I’m just joe in the pew, with a very simple faith which is largely based on the concept of ‘clear, simple meaning of Scripture’ (in English). Very simply, Jesus said ‘I and the Father are one; I am in the father, and the father is in me. And (paraphrased) I / my Father send the Holy Spirit. Jesus therefore, for me at any rate, is God – Father, Son and Spirit form the Trinity and yet are… Read more »
The Bishops resist the full implementation of provisions such ad Canon E7 and the ordination of SSMs and NSMs and similar, precisely because they will not to have an increased number of competent educated folk!
What do folk make of the contribution of the secretary of CEEC, Bishop Keith Sinclair, formerly Bishop of Birkenhead in Chester Diocese, and a joyful supporter of the ordination of women… who was embraced by a Bishop of AMIE , Lee Mcmunn… whom I often see in Tesco Extra here in Scarborough! It seems that for Con Evos this issue is one of salvation whereas issues of ordination are merely secondary.
It may be time to remember the history of the Savoy Conference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoy_Conference, notably including the non-conformist Richard Baxter) (not least because we now have another Charles as king). We have had theological divides before in our history. And for another historical moment, not so long after, think about the non-Jurors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonjuring_schism) [Thomas Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells and author of several hymns we still sing was one of seven bishops who refused to take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary]. Both Baxter and Ken are Church of England calendar in my copy of Common Worship (Ken… Read more »
There were a number of specifically evangelical secessions from the Cof E in 19c England. See Grayson Carter’s book published by OUP I think. The only one still going is the Free Church of England.
Interestingly the Free Church of England in Exeter was the oldest FCE still existing but on Good Friday they voted to leave the denomination. Facebook statement below: “On Good Friday 2023, the church membership voted to leave the FCE. We had called on the denomination to repent of its departure from the historic Protestant faith upon which it was founded and repent of its behaviour to former ministers including Revd Arthur Kay (St. John’s, Tottington), Jonatas Bragatto (St. Stephen’s, Middlesbrough) and Bp. Josep Rosello (Christ Church, Exmouth) but our calls went unheeded. We have not left hastily. We know there… Read more »
Yes, the FCE seems to have been changed into an “Evangelical Catholic” or “Catholic Evangelical” institution. It even has FATHER Calvin Robinson!!
There is still the Evangelical Connexion of the Free Church of England, which, though small, seems to be endeavouring to be faithful to its foundational ethos.
Can I draw readers attention to the CEEC quote which I have linked to in the OP
….Given that about 45% of the General Synod has clearly articulated the conviction that the proposals of the bishops are unacceptable, urgent consideration needs to be given to a form of good differentiation involving structural re-organisation without theological compromise. Following this path could prevent the unity of the Church of England being torn apart in the same way that the Communion has been.
What structural re-organisation does CEEC propose?
Differentiation means a separate set of orthodox bishops who hold full episcopal authority, including the authority to secure the future succession of orthodox episcopal government.
There is already a set of orthodox bishops. It’s called the House of Bishops. The problem is your (and the CEEC’s) attempt to redefine orthodoxy as “shares you view about marriage”.
I was providing Simon with an answer to his question.
Refusing to accept the answer given by a person or persons never achieves anything.
I noticed in the Pastor’s Heart interviews at Kigali William Taylor ( St H Bpgate) said they were no longer sending potential ordinands through C of E processes). I suspect there will be different ideas put forward. What ones will be runners I don’t know. A Third Province is talked about. But I can’t see that happening. It is difficult to know at this stage how far the Taylor / Vaughan Roberts hard line is shared by others.
That interview is here
https://www.thepastorsheart.net/podcast/gafcon23-william-taylor-vaughan-roberts
It is worth the time to watch.
Vaughan at one point referenced that a thousand clergy have signed the CEEC “compelled to resist”declaration.
That does not mean, of course, they all want a third province.
It does mean it is not just Taylor and Roberts raising objections.
According to Wikipedia, there are some 18,000 ordained ministers in the Church of England, which means the purported signatories of the CEEC declaration comprise just one-eighteenth of the total or just about 5.5 percent.
At the recent APCM of a large Minster-style church in a small market town, used from time to time for diocesan events, there was no one present under age of 70 other than the NSM chairman. There were no nominations for warden, so there are now no wardens. There was much reluctance to offer to serve on the PCC because, the chairman suspects, of the need for older people to support families in a way that was not necessary in times past and, of course, the fiscal responsibilities and penalties of trustees. I suspect this is not uncommon up and… Read more »
Stanley, traveling through Tanzania post Gafcon meeting local Bishops and clergy it is clear Gafcon is important to them. Travelling to village churches it is fair to say church politics is not high on the agenda of poor subsistence farmers but judging from sermons the doctrinal concerns that Gafcon has fits with what is taught in those churches. Of course Darwinian survival has a greater meaning than just church in Tanzania as I am sure you’ll agree
Forgive my naivety but does this mean they’ve finally left the Anglican Communion/Church and so the Archbishops of Canterbury and York can now act in the interests of their own provinces?
The short answer is no!
It’s quite a feat to claim to reject the instruments of communion and simultaneously claim to still be part of the communion. A positively Johnsonian cake approach to matters.
In the Kigali statement it states the following: “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.” They have not rejected the four instruments of communion. They have pointed out that they have… Read more »
The non English in Kigali…yes, they have technically abandoned the Anglican Communion.
The English of the conservative persuasion who are still part of the CofE have not technically yet abandoned the CofE.
Based on the above, the two Archbishops mentioned can indeed go around the business of their English provinces without worrying about the rest of the Anglican Communion. Yet, they still should pay attention to what the conservative members of their provinces do, say, think, feel, write, need, etc.
Reading here & in the press about Gafcon charge of blasphemy against CofE hierarchy from Welby downwards is terrific stuff. It’s back to the Thirteenth century & Albigensian Crusade mentality, or the Fourteenth Century suppression of the Lollards if you want to come closer to home, all of which is fascinating for historians.
In UK of course it no longer matters what anyone thinks blasphemy means, as the offence no longer exists in law. For a country where blasphemy is still a major issue you should consider Pakistan, where even the heavily guarded Chinese are fearful.
There is a much later instance of blasphemy law in the United Kingdom – the Blasphemy Act 1697, repealed only in 1813. Non-Trinitarians were persecuted; and, even long after 1813, non-Trinitarians were denied entry into Oxford and Cambridge. Perhaps the Church of England would care to apologise? And also offer some reparation?
The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were not abolished in England and Wales until the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and the corresponding offences in Scotland by the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. They continue to be offences in Northern Ireland.
As blasphemy did not come off the statute books until relatively recently it is obvious that there are later examples than those that I gave. But you could hardly compare not being eligible for Oxford or Cambridge with being a victim of the Albigensian Crusade! My point really is that words such as Blasphemy/Blasphemous, Heresy/Heretic, etc., are both archaic & so loaded with historic venom that they have no place in modern society. Indeed when they are used by so-called Christians towards other Christians they only serve to confirm the common belief in our largely secular Western World that Christianity… Read more »
Both Anglicans and Presbyterians have a long history in the British Isles of persecuting and excluding those not of their “Church”. Their so-called church schools will tolerate all sorts of anti-New Testament drivel, but will (as I know) exclude or put to the bottom of the applications pile the children of non-Trinitarians!
You merely reinforce my point about the in-fighting and intolerance reputational problem for Christianity, and other religions, in modern UK. Quite why anyone would want to send their children to any school which places specific religious affiliation on a pedestal is beyond me.
They should get on with the election of the Archbishop of Alexandria as their Universal Primate (as has been all along their plan since at least s earlier as 2010).
Where do we find archbishops in the New Testament? And are they deemed by the Fathers to be essential?
Go to second and third John. And if that does not convince you.. worry not, GAFCON has been planning to have a (Primate) Archbishop in Alexandria since 2008 and couldn’t care less about your or my opinion.
I see no archbishop(s) in 2 and 3 John! As to GAFCON’s plan. you may well be right; but I simply no longer trust any Anglican hierarchy – many who have left the CoE will probably never return to it.