Arguing for GAFCON

The Christian work and fellowship started by GAFCON in Jerusalem in June 2008 has only just begun.

We are well aware that it faces plenty of dangers and obstacles as it seeks to renew the Anglican Communion in the work of the gospel. We know that it has already been misunderstood in various quarters. This may lead some to hesitate about supporting it. That is why we want to respond to the particular misunderstandings and historical errors that are stated in the article by Iain Murray in the September 2008 issue of EN, although both of us have enormously appreciated books he has written over the years.

Authority of Scripture

Of course, Iain is quite right to point out that the great issue that is at stake within the Anglican churches and the other historic denominations is that of the authority of Scripture and the discipline associated with the practical exercise of that authority, rather than homosexuality itself. Although the matter of sexuality must be addressed, that is simply the presenting issue. Those who organised GAFCON were well aware of this and, in fact, the only way in which the homosexual issue had any presence at the conference was through the advertising of organisations which pastor those struggling with this in their own lives.

Defining an Anglican

Nevertheless, we believe that Iain has failed to grasp the real position of the Church of England in relation to doctrine and Scripture. His article speaks of the conference redefining ‘Anglican’ in relation to a historic definition in which membership involves adhering to the established church and being in communion with the see of Canterbury. This is to swallow a definition that has been promoted by Anglo-Catholics since the 19th century. A Catholic view of the church sometimes emphasises order and office at the expense of doctrine and, therefore, the serious misunderstanding that fellowship with the Archbishop of Canterbury is essential to the definition of what it means to be Anglican has been spread abroad. Yet the historic position is that being Anglican essentially involves commitment to biblical doctrine.

That is why the GAFCON Jerusalem Statement insists our identity as Anglicans is expressed in the words of Canon A5: ‘The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal’. This is why the Jerusalem Statement then stated: ‘While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury’. It is essential to see that the historic and evangelical position is that being Anglican depends on what you believe more than particular features of church life and order.

A lesser point is that Iain queries point 4 of the Jerusalem Declaration which says: ‘We uphold the 39 Articles as containing the true doctrine of the church’. He says that the word ‘containing’ is an escape clause. However the intention in this expression is simply to make it clear that while committed to their confession of faith we do not regard the 39 Articles as God’s own words. We have noted that Gresham Machen (Christianity and Liberalism, p.163) complains about ministers who, as required, solemnly declare at their ordination that the ‘Westminster Confession contains the system of doctrine taught in infallible Scriptures’ and then decry that same Confession. What was good enough for Gresham Machen is good enough for us as well.

The majority

Iain’s article also reveals that he has failed to understand the nature of the Anglican Communion today, just as many American and British bishops fail to do so. He queries the claim by the GAFCON movement that it does not wish to be a ‘breakaway from the majority in the Anglican Communion’. The reality on the ground is that those represented at GAFCON form the majority in the Anglican Communion, and this explains the strategy adopted by the GAFCON leaders and the statements within the Jerusalem Declaration. At least 35-40 million Anglican Christians were represented at GAFCON. The worldwide Anglican Communion has arguably around 50 million adherents if one does not count the people in England who never attend church. Why should the majority behave as though they were a minority?!

It is naturally confusing to find that the majority of Anglican bishops attended the Lambeth conference. This leads some to conclude that the bishops who attended GAFCON are a minority of the denomination as a whole. However, this is not the case, because the bishops from America and some parts of the British Isles are responsible for small numbers of congregations where attendance is declining, in contrast to the provinces represented at GAFCON. Just as evangelical congregations are poorly represented within the synods and leadership of the Church of England in relation to their numbers and size, so the orthodox congregations of the Anglican Communion are inadequately represented in the number of bishops. Furthermore, it should be appreciated that even at Lambeth the majority of those bishops present were credally and morally orthodox.

Iain Murray also accuses GAFCON of inconsistently applying the authority of Scripture. We are not entirely sure what he has in mind in saying this, although he seems to imply that this is done in order to sustain Anglo-Catholic support. We have to respond, however, by saying that the GAFCON leadership has had a different motivation. It has been seeking to assert the historic Anglican position on a biblical comprehensiveness. This is not an inconsistent application of the authority of Scripture, but rather a judicious one! Although English Anglo-Catholic involvement in GAFCON has not been large, it would not be right to exclude any who express a commitment to the 39 Articles. It also needs to be appreciated that certain practices viewed against the history of the parties within the Church of England can be regarded much more innocently in the wider Anglican Communion.

Again we find Gresham Machen to be a helpful guide in this matter. He is careful to say that, in insisting on the doctrinal basis of Christianity, he does not wish to be heard as saying that all points of doctrine are equally important (p.48). This is something that evangelicals will surely assent to in theory, but Machen then explains what this means in practice. He shows how Christians differ on views about the millennium and the sacraments and the nature of the Christian ministry. He says that the division between the Church of Rome and evangelical Protestantism is even more serious. He admits that the gulf is profound. Nevertheless, he concludes by saying this: ‘But profound as it is, it seems almost trifling compared to the abyss which stands between us and many ministers of our own church. The Church of Rome may represent a perversion of the Christian religion; but naturalistic liberalism is not Christianity at all’ (p.52).

Comprehensiveness an asset

It is for this reason that we do not feel that a fellowship of Anglicans based on a commitment to the historic Anglican formularies is anything to be ashamed of. Furthermore, while the Jerusalem Declaration was deliberately minimalistic, in the spirit of the 39 Articles, it is nonetheless a perfectly adequate statement of orthodoxy in the present climate. In our opinion, such a biblical comprehensiveness is an asset. With such a commitment, the historic Anglican view of the place of bishops can be properly understood. We do not wish to insist on the necessity of bishops (the Reformers and Hooker did not either), but simply consider that bishops are a godly means of governing Christian congregations where the men concerned exercise biblical leadership. GAFCON does not treat Episcopacy as of first order importance, as Iain Murray seems to think, but we are happy to continue with this ancient and helpful form of church order where the bishops concerned do exercise biblical leadership. For many faithful Anglicans, the most important practical outcome of GAFCON is the possibility that in future they will be able to follow Jesus Christ under the oversight of a faithful bishop once again.

In conclusion, we acknowledge that GAFCON still has much work to do in order to fulfil its vision of renewing the life and mission of the Anglican Communion, but we believe the foundations for that work are the right ones and will commend themselves to evangelicals everywhere.

Wallace Benn and Mark Burkill respond to Iain Murray

Authority of Scripture

Defining an Anglican

The majority

Comprehensiveness an asset

Wallace Benn & Mark Burkill

Main Articles

Other articles