Right writing righting +Wright's wrongs

In one of Bishop Wright's latest screeds against GAFCon, he made some comments on its constituency, noting that it represents:

a very odd combination of hard-line evangelicals, who would never use incense in a communion service, who would never wear Eucharistic vestments, along with Anglo-Catholics from America for whom those things are absolutely de rigeur.

Now, perhaps this is a reflection of the situation in England - my sense is that the "anglocatholics" there are either what I would call either (not to disparage, simply to clarify) "anglopapists" -- i.e. Anglicans who have no genuine objection to Rome's claims for universal ordinary jurisdiction, infallibility, etc -- or "high church angloprotestants" -- i.e. Anglicans who aren't really committed to "catholicism" in a theological sense (i.e. to that "catholic heritage" recognized by the seven Ecumenical councils, the traditional "catholic" teaching and practices of the Fathers, and accepted by both Rome and Orthodoxy... and, for that matter, many of the Protestant Reformers themselves!). The less said about the completely non-catholic "Affirming Catholics" in the U.K. the better.

But the problem with +Wright's comments are two-fold. First, insofar as the "anglocatholics" he describes are merely "high church angloprotestants" (you'll note that he cites incense and vestments -- not theology -- as the things which 'distinguish' those he is calling 'anglocatholics'), there really is no problem with this "odd combination" at GAFCon. Generally speaking, such liturgical matters are all adiahpora... and there's nothing to prevent "high church" and "low church" angloprotestants from working together in a unified jurisdiction and communion in common cause against the apostasy of PEcUSA and its like.


Now if it were just this liturgical difference represented at GAFCon it would be no big deal. High church vs low church liturgies?... have 'em both! To each his own! Not an issue. And that's all that some mean when they say "anglocatholic" these days.

Indeed Dr. J. I. Packer himself said much the same thing in the post-GAFCon press conference in London:

It is important to know who our friends are. Anglo-Catholics generally believe in Trinity, Scripture, atonement, resurrection, judgement, prayer, etc. A 'higher' view of sacraments and priesthood seems secondary in the light of those primary correspondences. I can be friends with Anglo-Catholics. Modern Anglo-Catholicism has a different agenda from in the past. I can, with qualifications, be friends with Anglo-Catholics. I have good will towards Forward in Faith.

The problem -- and +Wright would have been right if he had been talking about theology, not liturgical style -- is that GAFCON is trying to keep together two fundamentally different "strains" of Anglicanism. These strains have been together since the 2nd generation of Anglicanism -- when the Calvinists came over from the Continent and imported more extreme Protestant thought into the "English catholicism" of the first generation -- but "strains" is the right word: it has always been strained. And the way Anglicanism (under pressure from the State) has kept those two "strains" in one group by that highest of Anglican virtues: vagueness.

The thing is... it's precisely that vagueness which has allowed the apostates to take over PEcUSA, the AcoC, and other groups. And one of the things which GAFCON is doing -- like the Continuing Church did 30 years ago with the Affirmation of St. Louis -- is to address that problem of vagueness by articulating a standard for belief and practice. In this case, the Declaration of Jerusalem. And, as I pointed out with a side by side comparison of the Affirmation and Declaration, there are some fundamental THEOLOGICAL differences between the two. Not liturgical. Theological.

That being the case, and once we've figured out what subset of the GAFCON group is actually going to be willing (against the pressures from Canterbabble and PEcUSA and the nay-sayers( to make the necessary breaks and stands, and once that subgroup (or subgroups) have put something in place to replace PEcUSA... what will hold them together? We know what they are against in common... but what about all the differences in what they are for? Because there are some whopper differences there -- things like the nature of the sacraments, the apostolic succession, the ordained ministry, the Ecumenical Councils, and the authority of Tradtion. Dr. Packer's "good will" toward FIFNA, however collegial it might be, isn't nearly enough.

And so when the dust from GAFCON settles, and the buzz dies off, and the group (or surviving subset of it actually willing to break from PEcUSA) stops looking back and starts facing and trying to move forward (toward something rather than away from something)... then, yes, I think the passage you quote is, actually, quite correct: "That's not a coalition that's going to last very long, to be honest..."

Which is why, as I've said before, I think the best thing GAFCON could do for its own long-term survival is to be honest and up-front about the fact that it is a Protestant group -- tolerant of high church liturgy but not traditional anglocatholic theology -- and move forward without the "vagueness" and internecine tension which, otherwise, threatens both the coherence of its identity and the security of its future.

Or, even better, think about things a bit more and come home to the traditional Anglicanism of the Affirmation of St. Louis.


First posted on the MCJ blog.

GAFCon predictions from June

Back in the first week of June, before GAFCon met, a thread on the MCJ digressed into exchanges between people wondering what that (then still upcoming) meeting would bring. In light of what emerged at that meeting and reactions in the subsequent weeks, I'm going to copy/paste some of my posts from that thread over here, as the issues raised therein have actually become more, not less, relevant since they were first posted. I've color-highlighted some pertinent phrases.

Submitted by LP at 6/7/2008 11:35:19 AM

Technically, they'll be in communion with Canterbury. In functional and practical terms, they won't be. They'll have nothing to say to Rowan or his successor until such time as CoE repents and brings itself back to the Gospel.

Given that the Anglican Communion isn't actually a "communion" in any meaningful theological or spiritual sense of the term, the GS primates actually have an opening.

They can affirm that their "membership" in the "Anglican Communion" will continue to mean all it ever did mean -- i.e. a fraternal non-binding fellowship of independent churches with a common origin but no mutual accountability or overarching standards or authority. They can continue to be "friendly" to ++Williams but pay him and pointless Lambeth resolutions precisely as little heed as PEcUSA now pays them. They'll still be "in" the "Anglican Communion" just as much as ever; just as much as PEcUSA and AciC are.

As a "sub group", on the other hand, they can form their own genuine communion, with standards of theology and ethics, of ecclesiastical practice, sacramental recognition, clergy interchange, and of mutual accountability. They can create and enter into this actual communion independently of the Angloapostates and focus their energy and attention there, where it will be of some use.

In essence, therefor, they can implement the "two tiered" solution -- but rather than a system in which Canturbury is in tier one and groups which are even more un-Christian and un-Anglican in tier 2, the would view the CoE itself as a "tier 2" member -- i.e. "tier 2" = the "Anglican Communion" as it's currently constituted: i.e. just a friendly fellowship of historically related independent jurisdictions, not a real "communion" at all -- while "tier 1" members would be those who actually maintain genuine Anglican Christianity and which actually have real intercommunion, one based on a common faith, shared sacraments, and mutual accountability based on a clear and express Covenant.

Submitted by LP at 6/8/2008 6:15:51 PM

a collection of all the speeches from the opening convocation of the Episcopal Synod of America twenty years ago.

I believe that several of the big churches in that group -- i.e. the ones with the funds and the clout to be able to survive for a decade or so while the smaller or less solid parishes in their midst were suborned or their people and clergy driven off -- formed a big part of the nucleus of the AMiA.

It's interesting to note that the largest and most organized "fight from within" group of the 80s and 90s managed to accomplish less than nothing (i.e. fight just to survive with many of their parishes lost in the process) until they broke from PEcUSA.

The die-hard institutionalists have learned nothing from history -- the "fight from within" mindset has been tried and has failed utterly. And things are even more stacked against "traditionalists" now than they were in the 1980s.

Frankly, the institutionalist "fight from within" mindset is merely a variation on the "head in the sand" mindset... the latter pretends there's not a problem; the former pretends the problem isn't nearly as seriously as it so obviously is.

Submitted by LP at 6/9/2008 7:49:41 AM

LP: "They can continue to be "friendly" to ++Williams but pay him and pointless Lambeth resolutions precisely as little heed as PEcUSA now pays them."
Honestly, that really seems to lack integrity from the "orthodox" GS/GAFCON just as much as the lack of integrity from revisionist TEc when it ignores Lambeth (especially 1.10).

Perhaps... but perhaps not if they publicly announce that, given the history of the past 40 years, this is what they understand the "Canturbury Anglican Communion" officially to mean, as this is all it has, in practice, ever meant. Which would be far more honest than PEcUSA's typical double-talk.

Two, suppose GAFCON forms this "subgroup" as you call it without formal announcement and proclaiming that it is still in full formal communion with the See of Canterbury... In your theological opinion, does this possess full ecclesiastical, biblical, and God-honoring integrity?

As Antique pointed out, GAFCON may not be the place where this could happen. It might be, however, the place where a number of people get together and decide it will happen. But this would require substantially more backbone and cahones than even the G.S. has shown in past years. Which isn't to say that they won't or can't... just that it would represent an "escalation".

As for your question, if the "Genuine Anglican Communion" were to have any meaning, it would have to make clear its difference and division from the "Canturbury Anglican Communion"... the latter a mere fellowship, the former genuine sacramental communion. It would, thus, be pointless to form such a formal subgroup without it having a clear sacramental identity -- i.e. that the members are in full communion with each other but not with non-members; that membership in it requires breaking off any sacramental communion with PEcUSA or anyone in communion with PEcUSA; etc. (Otherwise, it's just another more or less sacramentally meaningless "sub group", which the Canturbury Anglican Communion already has plenty of... e.g. the Global South subgroup itself.)

This is, I fear, unlikely to happen -- for two reasons. First, the waffling of various dioceses within PEcUSA. There's an understandable desire to make "common cause" with those "traditionalists" still within PEcUSA... but when this includes full sacramental communion, it is effectively cutting their own case off at the knees. (Or higher).

For such a "real communion" to have any meaning, it has to make a clean and full break with the apostates. The proper response to those -- like +Duncan -- who share their principles but are still in communion with (and members of) apostate jurisdictions is to say "we'll welcome you with open arms, once you are no longer a member of an apostate jurisdiction and have broken off all sacramental ties with it. Until then, we cannot count you as a full member." This also means saying to the CoE (and ++Williams) "while we certainly continue to share a friendly regard for you because of our common heritage, and while we'll certainly be willing to continue in various Anglican-tradition meetings and consultations, like Lambeth, nevertheless, because you are in sacramental commuion with apostates, and because you yourself do not measure up to the "mere Anglicanism" of our Covenant, we are not in full sacramental communion with you -- even though we remain in the 'Canturbury Anglican Communion' (which isn't - and never has been - a "real communion" anyway) with you."

This would be a break from how the G.S. has operated to date -- since, for all its occasional strict messages to PEcUSA and the AciC, has continued to try to straddle two ultimately incompatible positions.

Secondly, all this talk of "sacramental communion" and its implications -- although it reflects the implicit ideals of Scripture as well as the practice and teaching of the undivided Church for a millennium, as well as the Western catholic and Eastern orthodox traditions since then, not to mention the Anglican teaching and understanding at least until the last century -- is, to greater or lesser extent, alien to modern Protestants.

In a stereotypical "Protestant" view, there's little or no difference between "fellowship" and "communion", and the Eucharist is just a symbol and acting out of an existing "fellowship", rather than the sacramental bond which creates the spiritual reality of "full sacramental communion" that is more intimate and substantive than the mere Christian "fellowship".

Accordingly, insofar as parts of the G.S. are more "Protestant" on this score, they may lack the theological and ecclesiastical understanding to make such a distinction -- friendly (or even not-so-friendly) "fellowship" with the CoE and others VS full sacramental communion with the genuine Anglican Christians -- in the first place. Now, that's making it black and white -- there are "intermediate" positions (of varying degrees of coherence) between those poles, and it may be that many of the relevant G.S. jurisdictions are "catholic" enough to make the distinctions.

But whether the G.S. jurisdicitons share enough common ground on (and respect for) catholic (and traditional Anglican) sacramental theology & its implications so as to support the two-tiered approach... I don't know.

Submitted by LP at 6/9/2008 12:33:54 PM

Also keep in mind there are several layers of Communion in the AC. Most of the GS are, right this moment, either in "impaired communion" or "broken communion" (the latter being Episcobabble for "not in communon") with the heretical Provinces.

This is symptomatic of the problem. Any theological understanding of "communion" which is based in Scripture and Tradition -- rather than being used as just a synonym for a Protestant ideal of "fellowship" -- recognizes that it is a "yes or no" situation. You cannot be "partly" in communion with someone. You either are, or you are not. And it is a transitive property: if A is in communion with B, and B is in communion with C, then A is in communion with C.

The mistake made by the "Protestant" mindset is that "being in communion" basically means "sharing some basic beliefs with" or "sharing Christian fellowship and history" with. That is wrong.

Sharing beliefs and fellowship are a good thing - don't get me wrong - and the closer the beliefs, the greater the possible fellowship. But "being in communion", in the Biblical and patristic sense, means, essentially, being one church. It doesn't just mean that you agree with some of each other's theology, it means that you share the fundamentals of belief and that you recognize each other's sacraments and clergy.

Accordingly, this whole idea of "impaired communion" is, ultimately, incoherent. It is -- in my view -- nothing more than a timid palliative; a way of saying "we don't have the guts to break off institutional affiliation with Canturbury but we want to express our distaste with your theology." It's sound and fury, signifying nothing.

If the CoE is formally "in communion" with PEcUSA, then that means not just that the CoE recognizes that everything PEcUSA teaches and practices is acceptable -- that it's theology is viewed as orthodox and its practices viewed as unobjectionable -- but also that the CoE views all of PEcUSA's clergy as valid and all its sacraments as assured. That's what "being in communion" means -- the teaching is accepted, the practices are appropriate, the clergy and sacraments are valid. Practices may vary, of course -- matters of liturgy, discipline, local customs, etc. "Being in communion" doesn't require being identical. But it does require agreement in theological and ecclesiastical basics.

This means that anyone who is "in communion" with PEcUSA has, by that very fact, stated that they believe nothing that PEcUSA teaches errs on fundamentals and that PEcUSA's ecclesial acts (sacraments, ordinations, etc) are all valid. Anyone "in communion" with PEcUSA thus, by that fact, states that they believe women can be ordained, that homosexual activity is not sinful, and that ordination and marriage of the homosexually active is acceptable... even if their own jurisdiction doesn't share these practices. It also, by the by, means accepting PEcUSA's institutional support of abortion and various "positive" heretical statements.

Now, in practice, I don't think most of the Global South accepts any of this. In which case, the only coherent reaction is to anathematize PEcUSA -- to be "out of communion" with it, at least until it repents and reforms. (yeah, right.) However, the CoE and other bodies which have refused to break communion with PEcUSA have ipso facto stated that all of PEcUSA's official teaching and practices are acceptable. They may not share those teachings and practices, but by not breaking off communion they say, in effect, that those differing practices do not matter -- that PEcUSA has, by them, not abandoned anything essentially Anglican or Christian. The only response to such affiliated jurisdictions -- those which are, as it were, accomplices to the murder of Christianity -- is also to break communion with them. Because the "Christianity" they teach is one which has also abandoned the fundaments -- because it says compromise on these funamentals is acceptable. Acceptable because communion is maintained with those who have abandoned the fundamentals. Meaning these affiliated jurisdiction don't think those things are, actually, fundamental after all.

To date, the Global South hasn't had the cahones to do this. And the reason, as far as I can tell, is not wanting to "leave the Anglican Communion"... even when staying in that Canturbury Club means abandoning an insistance upon the fundamentals of Anglican Christianity.

(Which is, by the by, why the position of people like +Beckwith and +Ackerman, even though they claim to be "catholics", is fundamentally incoherent and non catholic... regardless of how laudable their teaching of Trinitarian theology or sexual ethics might be.)

This is where I was coming from in my earlier post about the fact that "the Anglican Communion isn't actually a communion" gives the G.S. an opening they ought to -- but, to date have been too timid to -- take. What, frankly, they ought to have done from the get-go rather than perpetrating this nonsense about "impaired communion"

I.e. for them formally to state the de facto reality that the Anglican Communion isn't a "communion" in the theological or spiritual sense of the word, but merely a fellowship of losely affiliated but completely independent jurisdictions. And to state that, while they're prepared to remain in a lose "fellowship" or "affiliation" with these other jurisdictions, they do not believe that such a fellowship means "being in communion" -- since being "in communion" requires shared theological and ecclesiastical beliefs and practices which the "Canturbury Anglican Communion" does not require.

In short, they can be out of communion with the apostates -- and with those who continue "in communion" with the apostates -- and still be "in the Anglican Communion" with them (and with the apostate-enabling CoE) in every sense that "being in the Anglican Communion" now has. No need to throw around incoherent ideas like "impared communion" or illogical suppositions of non-transitive communion relationships.

Submitted by Truth Unites... and Divides at 6/12/2008 4:03:51 PM

[Crossposting LP's Excellent Comment. Maybe someone will look at all the blogosphere discussion on SPREAD. And LP's comment is completely relevant.]

lol... take it easy guys. :-)

The "catholic" (and, historically, Anglican... and of course Roman and Eastern) understanding of schism and unity is this:

The ideal is to be one in the faith. One faith; one Church; one baptism. But this unity is in the faith. It is, ultimately, an expression of unity in Christ. If that oneness in Christ isn't there, then the unity is as meaningless as membership in the Audubon Society... it is an "institutional" unity of a sort, but because it's not based on oneness in Christ it is, therefore, not the "spiritual unity" which is the sort the Church is charged to seek out.

Thus the Biblical and Traditional reason for schism -- such as when Simon Magus was ejected by the apostles; when the patristic fathers broke communion with the Arians, etc -- is the necessary response when someone has broken off that unity. If someone says "I reject Christ" and you say "I'll remain in spiritual communion with you" you have, thereby, said that that "communion" is not based on unity in Christ. The proper response, by contrast, is to say "you have, by abandoning Christ, abandoned the ground of our union and communion."

That apostate has, in effect, performed the schism. The orthodox response, separating himself from the apostate, is not creating schism but recognizing that the apostate has already created that schism. To stay "in communion" with the apostate is not avoiding schism -- it is participating in it. Confronted with apostasy, the choice of the orthodox is not "schism or no schism" -- the choice is whether to participate in that schism, or to avoid it by separating from - and anathematizing - the apostate.

In this sense, the "Anglican Communion" is schismatic. It is schismatic in so far as it has -- in refusing to separate itself from the apostates -- joined their schism from Christ. Refusing to separate doesn't avoid schism... it participates in it. "Unity in Christ's Church is all important" -- fair enough. But when you include apostates in your "church" you have ipso facto broken away from "Christ's Church" and joined the schism.

Of course, it is ONLY those actions which genuinely separate one's self from Christ -- genuine apostasy and heresy -- which require this remedy. Differences of pious practice, of interpretations within acceptable norms, etc... in all these, believers have freedom. Those difference which are not theological & ecclesiastical do not merit such separation. Right there, you probably have removed the reasons for 50% of the more-or-less undifferentiated "vanilla Protestant" denominations to be separate. (And, truth be told, for many of the Continuing Church jurisdictions' separations as well.)

Further, it's when a jurisdiction has embraced heresy and apostasy -- as PEcUSA has -- not when this or that individual in it has that communion between jurisdictions must be broken. Every group has its wackos... the issue is not what the wackos say (wackos who, hopefully, will be properly disciplined within their own jurisdiction) but what the jurisdiction as a whole officially teaches and practices. Thus the reason to break from PEcUSA is not because of Pike or Spong or Vicky Gene -- but because of the institutional teaching and practice as a whole. (The flip side of which is that the presence of more traditional bishops -- such as Ackerman or Duncan -- isn't adequate reason to stay. The institution is still schismatic, heretical and apostate.)

Nevertheless, the fundamental point is this: the Anglican Communion is, as a whole, schismatic because -- in refusing to separate itself from apostates -- it has abandoned its foundational unity in Christ and, thus, joined the schism. It has placed "jurisdictional affiliation" over preserving the faith -- and that is heterodox.

There are different possible remedies -- getting the group, as currently constituted, to eject its apostate members (which seems unlikely); forming a separate jurisdiction requiring and preserving that unity in Christ (and consecrating new bishops & forming new jurisdictions where needed -- e.g. a new CoE with a new bishop of the see of Canturbury); etc. No doubt there are others. But the current "status quo" is not among them -- for, right now, the Anglican Communion has abandoned its unity in Christ (and, thus, abandoned any spiritually meaningful "communion" and "unity") because it has ceased to make unity in the faith a requisite for membership.

Just remember: separation and anathematization are not, per se, misguided or improper. When confronted with apostasy, they are the only way to avoid joining the schism. The only way to preserve the unity in Christ which is the whole point in the first place.

Affirmation vs. Declaration

For those who are interested in how GAFCON's Jerusalem Declaration compares to the Continuing Church's Affirmation of St. Louis, here are some main points:

SIMILARITIES

1. Continuing Anglicanism

Affirmation:

We, being moved by the Holy Spirit to walk only in that way, are determined to continue in the Catholic Faith, Apostolic Order, Orthodox Worship and Evangelical Witness of the traditional Anglican Church, doing all things necessary for the continuance of the same. We are upheld and strengthened in this determination by the knowledge that many provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion have continued steadfast in the same Faith, Order, Worship and Witness.... We affirm our continued relations of communion with the See of Canterbury and all faithful parts of the Anglican Communion.

Declaration:

We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it.

2. Rejection of Apostasy

Affirmation:

We affirm that the ACoC and the PECUSA, by their unlawful attempts to alter Faith, Order and Morality (especially in their General Synod of 1975 and General Convention of 1976), have departed from Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church... We affirm that all former ecclesiastical governments, being fundamentally impaired by the schismatic acts of lawless Councils, are of no effect among us, and that we must now reorder such godly discipline as we strengthen us in the continuation of our common life and witness... We affirm that the claim of any such schismatic person or body to act against any Church member, clerical or lay, for his witness to the whole Faith is with no authority of Christ&'s true Church, and any such inhibition, deposition or discipline is without effect and is absolutely null and void.

Declaration:

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.

3. Lordship of & Salvation through Christ

Affirmation:

In the firm conviction that “we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,” and that “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved,” and acknowledging our duty to proclaim Christ’s saving Truth to all peoples, nations and tongues, we declare our intention to hold fast the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith of God.

Declaration:

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.

4. Authority of Scripture

Affirmation:

We repudiate all deviation of departure from the Faith, in whole or in part, and bear witness to these essential principles of evangelical Truth and apostolic Order: (1) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and the authentic record of God’s revelation of Himself, His saving activity, and moral demands—a revelation valid for all men and all time.

Declaration:

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.

5. The Three Creeds

Affirmation:

...(2) The Nicene Creed as the authoritative summary of the chief articles of the Christian Faith, together with the “Apostles’ Creed, and that known as the Creed of St. Athanasius to be “thoroughly received and believed” in the sense they have had always in the catholic Church.

Declaration:

We uphold… the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

6. Marriage

Affirmation:

The God-given sacramental bond in marriage between one man and one woman is God’s loving provision for procreation and family life, and sexual activity is to be practiced only within the bonds of Holy Matrimony.

Declaration:

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.

7. Ecumenicism—though Affirmation is clearer in what the essentials are, they both state that ecumenical relations are based on such standards:

Affirmation:

The continuing Anglicans remain in full communion with the See of Canterbury and with all other faithful parts of the Anglican Communion, and should actively seek similar relations with all other apostolic and catholic Churches, provided that agreement in the essentials of Faith and Order first be reached.

(N.B. Once the CoE started ordaining women, it no longer met, from the Continuing perspective, the requirement of agreement on “essentials of Faith and Order”.)
Declaration:

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.

DIFFERENCES

1. Ecumenical Councils—Affirmation accepts all seven; the Declaration only four.

Affirmation:

...(3) The received Tradition of the Church and its teachings as set forth by “the ancient catholic bishops and doctors,” and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, to the exclusion of all errors, ancient and modern.

Declaration:

We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils… as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

2. Thirty-nine Articles—for the Affirmation, these are less authoritative than the Creeds, Councils and the patristic consensus; for the Declaration, they come second only to Scripture:

Affirmation:

In affirming these principles [Scripture, Creeds, Councils etc] we recognize that all Anglican statements of faith and liturgical formulae must be interpreted in accordance with them.

Declaration:

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.

3. Historic and traditional norms of Scriptural interpretation are “required” by the Affirmation, merely to be “respected” by the Declaration.

Affirmation:

We acknowledge that rule of faith laid down by St. Vincent of Lerins: “Let us hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all, for that is truly and properly Catholic.”

Declaration:

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.

4. Liturgical Norms

Affirmation:

In the continuing Anglican Church, the Book of Common Prayer is (and remains) one work in two editions: The Canadian Book of 1962 and the American Book of 1928. Each is fully and equally authoritative. No other standard for worship exists.

Declaration:

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.

5. Ordination—Affirmation explicitly defines the clergy with apostolic succession and the Eucharist, rejects lay presidency, and requires a male-only clergy; Declaration only speaks of “historic succession” (could mean the same thing of course) and doesn’t forbid W.O. or lay presidency:

Affirmation:

The Holy Orders of bishops, priests and deacons as the perpetuation of Christ’s gift of apostolic ministry to His Church, asserting the necessity of a bishop of apostolic succession (or priest ordained by such) as the celebrant of the Eucharist—these Orders consisting exclusively of men in accordance with Christ’s Will and institution (as evidenced by the Scriptures), and the universal practice of the catholic Church.

Declaration:

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.

First posted on SFiF before I was banned there for being articulately anglocatholic (like so many other anglocatholic former members).


THOUGHTS

Similarities: the first thing to notice about these similarities, laudable as they are, is that they are very basic. Other than the commitment to the Anglican Communion (point 1), there is nothing here which any minimally Christian organization (Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox) could not agree with. (Much of the Anglican Communion in the first world, of course, therefore will have trouble with those points, but that should come as no surprise by now.)

The similarity of the language desiring to remain in the Anglican Communion (aka the Lambeth Anglican Federation) is noteworthy. Remember, the Continuing Church movement only intended -- for the sake of remaining faithful Christians as well as Anglicans -- to break away from apostate PEcUSA, not from the Anglican Communion as a whole. But the Anglican Communion chose not to disassociate itself from PEcUSA's apostasy but, at least in many places, to follow it. Those who are confident that the same won't happen again should take heed to this history and plan accordingly. Keeping the "GAFCon movement" within the "Anglican Communion" may prove to be more difficult than some think... and some of the "institutionalist" reactions to GAFCon in the days and weeks after that meeting should increase these concerns.

Among the differences between the Affirmation and the Declaration is how the Affirmation is a much more robust and comprehensive statement of basic norms. The Affirmation, for examples, mentions the sanctity of life -- the Declaration, by contrast, takes no position (implicit or explicit) on pressing issues such as abortion. Of course, this merely indicates that the framers of the Affirmation chose to address a slightly larger range of basic concerns than the Declaration; I mention it just to point out a difference between the documents, not as a criticism of the Declaration.


But by far the biggest difference between the two is how firmly the Affirmation remains in the Anglican catholic tradition and how aggressively the Declaration departs (at least implicitly) from it. At every point at which the Declaration had to chose between the catholic and protestant traditions it chose the protestant.

This self-consciously protestant identity is clear in the points of difference mentioned above. The Affirmation affirms the normative interpretive authority of Tradition; the Declaration does not. The Affirmation recognizes all seven Ecumenical Councils; the Declaration does not. The Affirmation acknowledges the primary authority of Scripture and the Tradition of the undivided Church over subsequent formularies; the Declaration, by contrast, elevates the 39 Articles to a confessional status they have never had in any Anglican church (except, at least nominally, in the Church of England) by making them second only to Scripture in binding authority. And while the Affirmation sets forth the balanced 1928 BCP as a liturgical norm, the Declaration reaches back to chose the most protestant option among the BCPs, making the 1662 book its norm. And, of course, while the Affirmation explicitly rules out both women's ordination and lay presidency at communion, the Declaration (whose supporters include those who practice the first and are, at least, open to the possibility of the second) does not.

In short, the Declaration is implicitly setting up norms of an angloprotestant belief which looks to be, at best, only grudgingly tolerant of any sort of "theological anglocatholicism". (By which I mean an anglocatholicism which holds to the traditional norms of Faith and Order outlined in the Affirmation, not the "liturgical anglocatholicism" of mere high-church worship or the "false anglocatholicism" of the so-called 'Affirming Catholics' in England.)

I'm not the only one who immediately noticed this clear protestant bent. From within the ranks of the GAFCon supporters, bishop John Rodgers of the AMiA notes:

any very important matters were not directly addressed at GAFCON, in the Statement or in the Jerusalem Declaration. This by no means relegates matters such as the status of 5th, 6th and 7th Councils, the ordination of women, the form of the Anglican Communion, abortion, the nature of and conflict with militant Islam, our relation to the persecuted Church etc. to secondary issues. There are serious issues and differences among the fellowship of confessing Anglicans that must and will be faced. It will not be easy, nor will solutions be sudden, nor can we be absolutely certain that some will not, in the end, decide they must walk apart.

And Archbishop Haverland of the ACC has likewise commented:

GAFCON produced a now widely published statement which does not address the innovations that led to the formation of our own Continuing Church in 1976-8: namely the ‘ordination of women’, a new and radical Prayer Book, and a pro-abortion policy.

Some anglocatholic observers are even more critical.

Obviously, the GAFCon ramifications are not yet over... it remains to be seen what the coming months bring, as well as the promised follow-up meetings. Nevertheless, from what we've seen so far, it should be increasingly clear to those few theological anglocatholics who still remain either in the Lambeth Anglican Federation or in GAFCon circles that the future of a genuine anglocatholicism -- if any -- does not lie in those affiliations, but rather among those Anglicans who maintain the traditional Anglicanism which was affirmed (not created) in the Affirmation of St. Louis.