May your tribe increase!

(From a very interested Southern Baptist whose mother grew up in the C of E.)

For the sake of unity, most of us were prepared to overlook a touch of the ‘real presence’ as demonstrated by some of the clergy at the front table. This was not the time to be doctrinaire.

Gaa! This is exactly what I’ve been going on about!!

Sorry, just to be clear, that quote wasn’t from your post Tony, it was from here.

I say the realignments haven’t gone far enough. I hope the evangelicals at GAFCON now take a nice deep breath and look for further ways to make the biblical bases of historic Anglicanism clear. And real presence definitely ain’t one of them.

Just wondering, do any of you have a problem with some parishes in the Sydney Diocese seeking Episcopal oversight abroad?

Not if they can show that their bishop has seriously departed from biblical orthodoxy as outlined in the 39 Articles, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal.

On behalf of a small but very excited gang of young evangelicals in Christchurch, we are both tremendously grateful for and encouraged by the GAFCON statement. It is good to see our African brothers being thanked and encouraged for their leadership; it has been greatly appreciated here. A young baptist (MTS worker)in our congregation has even started a Facebook group, ‘I dig the GAFCON statement’. Weird but true!
We are also very thankful to those perhaps in places like Sydney where the threat seems more distant, but who have been godly, courageous and discerning enough to be prepared to stick their necks out and stand up for others under seige - despite at times criticism from people oblivious to the very present dangers. Praise God for doing as He promised through His Son - to build His church.

...real presence...

Gordo, are you worried by the “real presence” or the “physical presence” of Christ in the sacrament?

Article 28 says -

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

This article affirms that Christ *is not* physically present in the supper. But it also affirms that Christ *is* present in a “heavenly and spiritual manner.” That is a *real* presence, even if it is not a physical presence…

As a classical evangelical vicar of 3 tiny, rural, non-evangelical parishes in England, thank you Tony, and everyone else who was at GAFCON, for what you’ve done. I read the statement last night, and this morning I’m still wondering if I’m dreaming. As with all statements of this sort, there are bits where I thought “I wish they’d put that a bit differently” or “I wish they’d said something about… “. But overall, the Jerusalem statement is brilliant in its clear focus on the uniqueness of Christ. I’m also very encouraged by the place given to the 39 Articles. For the first time in ages, I’m actually proud to be Anglican.

As far as Anglo-Catholics are concerned, some are brothers and sisters in Christ, however misguided. If they are prepared to return ad fontes, and accept the supreme authority of scripture,and the secondary authority of the 39 Articles, then let’s have fellowship with them and encourage them.

Go Gafcon!

I just read the St. Andrews Draft Covenant. It seems the GAFcon Final Statement has given the four instruments of unity a bit of a shake…

Lambeth will be an interesting conversation to watch…

GP

Perhaps I’m a bit simple, David, but to me “biblical orthodoxy” means stuff taught by the Bible. So I don’t know what you mean by this strange comment.

The Anglican Church has defined what they believe the Bible teaches, and that is the standard we adopt when we agree to call ourselves Anglican, either through confirmation or ordination.

I’d prefer to be charitable and suggest that I didn’t explain myself adequately.

If what is biblical needs to be first vetted through the source
documents you’d suggest, then one could hardly call the Bible the ultimate authority, could they? Kind of same relationship as that that exists between George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. According to the “more nuanced” understanding of Sola Scriptura, people may point to the Bible as El Presidente, but the strings are really being pulled from somewhere else.

It’s not like the “true and authentic Anglican tradition”, as you put it, has not been defined.

But this is the point - GAFCON, rather than anyone else has defined this esoteric understanding of Anglican tradition. Which ultimately means that the underlying authority for GAFCON is none other than GAFCON itself.

It’s like someone joining a soccer team, then deciding to pick the ball up and run up the field with it, and then asking if they can be coached by a rugby coach and refereed by a rugby ref under rugby rules. Just go and join a rugby club, for heaven’s sake! Don’t try and turn our soccer team into a rugby team.

But what I’m saying is that perhaps a parish in Sydney believes that GAFCON have been ball tampering and that hence they need to look elsewhere than the Sydney Diocese for a body than more effectively represents authentic Anglicanism.

The whole point of doctrinal statements is to say “this is what we, as a group, believe the Bible is teaching and this is what defines us as we start out together”. People are free to disagree if they think the Bible teaches something different; but they can’t then continue to say they are in the group.

GAFCON didn’t make up this definition of Anglicanism. Nor do I think it can be said to be particularly “esoteric”.

With all due respect Ian, all you’re doing is simply making the assertion that this is the authentic and authoritative expression of Anglicanism. I warmly invite you to substantiate this assertion, but realise that something does not because more true the more times you assert it.

As someone recently returned from West Africa and now involved with an Anglican church, I was beginning to wonder if I should leave because of concerns about the hierarchy’s stand on same-sex marriages, among other things. Now the GAFCON statement gives me hope. It is time for a stand to be made.