To view earlier newsletters click here

General Reform News for July and August

Chairman's Report

Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON)

GAFCON exceeded expectations. We had hoped that this major Anglican gathering in Jerusalem last month would achieve two things:

  1. a clarification that Anglicanism defines itself by its commitment to the biblical faith not by institutions or ‘invitations to Lambeth’
  2. a statement of support for those bishops who have provided Episcopal oversight for parishes and dioceses in other provinces, struggling to prevent a false gospel taking hold.

In the event, GAFCON did more. Using the wording of Canon A5, it re-iterated that Anglican doctrine was grounded in the Holy Scriptures and articulated in the 39 Articles, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. It stressed the need for Christian churches to be galvanised into joyfully embracing our Lord’s command to bring the gospel to all people. It identified a need for discipline in relation to the Episcopal churches in the USA and Canada where a false gospel has been promoted and called for their repentance. Its own understanding of the gospel was summarised in the ‘Jerusalem 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 we deserve. By his atoning death and glorious resurrection, he secured the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith”. It restated biblical teaching on marriage, sexuality, unity, justice, responsibility towards the needy and ‘freedom in secondary matters’. It not only supported those who had offered oversight from oversees to churches under false leadership but said these actions would continue to be necessary around the world. It specifically repudiated any suggestion of schism, describing GAFCON as ‘a movement of confessing Anglicans’ into which every Anglican would be welcome, making clear that its purpose was to reform and revitalise the Anglican Communion and expand its mission in the world. Finally, it called for the formation of a new province in North America and for a Primates’ Council to take matters forward across the Communion as a whole.

What a conference statement cannot contain, however, is a sense of what the gathering felt like. An undercurrent of joy and unity was present throughout – largely because, despite the different churchmanships on display, there was no argument over the authority of God’s Word. There was also a sense of humility as participants recognised that God was doing a new thing with the Anglican Church. When the first draft of the conference statement was read to everyone, there was a huge wave of joy and relief as people stood to clap, tears in their eyes, as they realised that at last an initiative had been taken to start to address our needs.

In the hope that evangelical Anglicans in this country will wish to demonstrate full-hearted support for the outcome of GAFCON, there are two on-line opportunities to do so. One is for individuals [http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/20243.html] and one for parishes [http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/20252.html]. Needless to say, I warmly commend you to do so.

GAFCON and England

GAFCON was followed immediately on 1st July by a packed meeting at All Souls in London for church leaders, both clergy and non-clergy. It culminated in Archbishop Peter Jensen warning us that the revisionists’ strategy was to buy time in the expectation that those who are currently orthodox will eventually give in. GAFCON would help to counter this by taking ‘principled action’ which would both provide order and support for orthodox churches across different provincial boundaries. As a movement GAFCON could be as significant as the Evangelical Revival and Peter Jensen called on us in England to play a leading part. He said it was for us to decide what action to take, but urged us to:

  1. Set a lead in obedience to the Bible and sacrifice for the gospel.
  2. Give priority to ensuring that churches are led by incumbents who are good teachers.
  3. Teach ‘lay people’ about the issues at stake without being put off by the thought we may be inviting disunity.
  4. Make sure we are part of an active evangelical fellowship that will keep us theologically sharp.
  5. Make evangelism the ‘sharp point’ in our evangelical fellowship. This will bring us together and stop ‘tribal warfare’.

Peter Jensen’s call for action came against the background of a series of meetings that Reform and others were able to organise whilst we were at GAFCON. At these meetings we recognised the need for all evangelicals who unequivocally accept the authority of God’s Word to come together for the sake of action in defence of the gospel. Action was needed, both to provide for the needs of a number of congregations who were either being denied a place in the Church of England or who were in impaired communion with their bishops, and also to encourage those who would otherwise feel excluded by the Church in the event that new legislation on women bishops was approved. The form this action could take had already been envisaged by the signatories of ‘A Covenant for the Church of England’. It is therefore to these signatories, representing united evangelicalism, that we look for immediate steps forward.

The first step in our ‘English solution’ must be to explore opportunities for ways forward that are likely to gain official recognition. This means once again approaching the Archbishop of Canterbury so that his support can be sought for new arrangements for episcopal oversight where they are needed. In the first instance this will mean requesting him to appoint a bishop to provide such oversight. However, it is important that we avoid lengthy discussions and further delays. We need to move forward, but to do so in a way that keeps the Primates of the ‘Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans’ (FOCA) both informed and supportive.

Alongside these developments, the recent General Synod debate on women bishops has also had an impact.

General Synod Debate on Women Bishops

As members will know, the House of Bishops decided not to pursue any of the options for protecting the position of those who disagree with the consecration of women bishops, and instead recommended to Synod a motion advocating a single-clause Measure permitting women bishops with ‘protection’ for dissentients being provided through a Code of Practice.

The only additional step General Synod was prepared to take was to ensure that any such Code of Practice would be statutory –i.e. all parties would be bound by statute to ‘have regard’ to it.

During the debate it was made clear that on its own a Code of Practice would be insufficient to protect dissentients and that, coupled with the removal of the protective provisions in the 1993 Measure, this would be tantamount to the exclusion of many orthodox people from the Church of England. There was a good deal of unease about this; many senior bishops voted against the motion and the Archbishop of Canterbury abstained.

A statutory Code of Practice would be insufficient to protect those who believe it to be wrong to consecrate women bishops for a number of reasons. These include:

  1. Parties would simply have to demonstrate they have ‘had regard’ to the provisions of a Code. They could then decide to override the requests of a petitioning parish.
  2. Even if a diocesan bishop decided to delegate some of his or her functions to a ‘complementary’ bishop to meet a particular request under the terms of the Code, there would be little to stop discrimination against candidates for ordination who believe in male leadership. A Code would also be unlikely to prevent obstacles being put in the way of ‘traditionalist’ clergy seeking new appointments.
  3. Since a Code provides only minimal protection and the current statutory protections for the ‘traditionalist integrity’ are likely to be removed, it is clear that the Church of England is seeking to ensure that those who stand for male headship in the Church die out over time.

Despite this unfavourable outcome, it is important to recognise that the outlook is not wholly bleak. The voting in General Synod showed that when the time comes for approving legislation, there is a strong possibility that the required two thirds majority in each House will not be obtained. If this is so, then it will not be possible to consider the matter again until the new General Synod is elected in 2010. This means that it is crucial we put effort into encouraging people to stand for election in 2010. Just a few more people elected for the House of Laity would firmly tip the balance against a future two thirds majority in that House.