Sunday, July 20, 2008

Gafcon leaders in rebuff to Archbishop of Canterbury

As the Lambeth Conference got under way in Canterbury, Kent, leaders from the breakaway Global Anglican Future Conference criticised the remarks by the Archbishop of Canterbury about their recent Jerusalem meeting.

In a statement issued by seven leaders of the Gafcon movement, all of whom are Primates of the Anglican Communion, they say that the reasons for the birth of the movement have not changed, and they intend to carry on with their project because they have to take a stand against ‘false teaching.’

Following their conference the Archbishop of Canterbury raised a number of questions about Gafcon, and its ‘Jerusalem Declaration.’ Among these were whether there was false teaching in the Anglican Communion, the uniqueness of Christ, authority, discipline and whether Gafcon itself was a legitimate response to any felt concerns.

In their statement, signed by The Most Rev Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria, The Most Rev Justice Akrofi, Primate of West Africa, The Most Rev Emmanuel Kolini, Primate of Rwanda, The Most Rev Valentine Mokiwa, Primate of Tanzania, The Most Rev Benjamin Nzmibi, Primate of Kenya, The Most Rev Henry Orombi, Primate of Uganda, and The Most Rev Gregory Venables (pictured), Primate of The Southern Cone, they say that they formed ‘a Council in obedience to the word of God to defend the faith and the faithful who are at risk in some Anglican dioceses and congregations.’

They expressed surprise at the Archbishop of Canterbury’s contention that the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God' is 'not in dispute' in the Anglican Communion.

“Leading bishops in The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and even the Church of England have denied the need to evangelise among people of other faiths, promoted and attended syncretistic events and, in some cases, refused to call Jesus Lord and Saviour,” they write.

In a pointed snub to Dr Williams, they say that in the Anglican tradition, “authority is not concentrated in a single centre, but rather across a number of persons and bodies. This Council is a first step towards bringing greater order to the Communion, both for the sake of bringing long overdue discipline and as a reforming initiative for our institutions.”

They add that while they respect territoriality, it cannot be absolute. “For missionary and pastoral reasons there have long been overlapping jurisdictions in Anglicanism itself – historically in South Africa, New Zealand, the Gulf and Europe. In situations of false teaching, moreover, it has sometimes been necessary for other bishops to intervene to uphold apostolic faith and order.”

However, they address another concern of the Anglican primus inter pares, that of people who have been disciplined in one jurisdiction and have been accepted in another. “We are clear that any such cases have been investigated thoroughly and openly with the fullest possible transparency. Bishops and parishes have been given oversight only after the overseeing bishops have been fully satisfied of no moral impediments to their action,” they write.

They respond to claims that they are setting up a ‘pure’ church. “We are not claiming to be a sinless church. Our concern is with false teaching which justifies sin in the name of Christianity. These are not merely matters of different perspectives and emphases. They have led to unbiblical practice in faith and morals, resulting in impaired and broken communion. We long for all orthodox Anglicans to join in resisting this development.”

In addition to their letter, they have also dismissed the latest version of the Anglican Covenant, designed to impose a code of practice on Anglican Churches. “This new draft of An Anglican Covenant is both seriously limited and severely flawed. Whether or not the tool of covenant is the right way to approach the crisis within the Communion, this document is defective and its defects cannot be corrected by piecemeal amendment because they are fundamental. The St Andrews Draft is theologically incoherent and its proposals unworkable. It has no prospect of success since it fails to address the problems which have created the crisis and the new realities which have ensued.”

They point to a key element of the latest draft which they say is central to their concerns. “Section 3 is in fact the critical section of the document, because this introduces the thought of Churches as being 'autonomous-in-communion'. It is on this concept that the proposed resolution of Communion disputes rests.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer

No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.

The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.

Sotto Voce