Why Gafcon?

The various parts of Gafcon have different histories and reasons for being part of Gafcon. ACNA is a combination of various denominations in North America which had formed in the twentieth century as traditionalists opposed to homosexuality or the ordination of women.Footnote ¹¹ It was formed in December 2008 and acceded to the Jerusalem Declaration. The Anglican Diocese of Sydney is also renowned for its conservative evangelical theology, and its long-standing opposition to the ordination of women to positions of leadership, and conservatism on issues of gender and sexuality. ACNA has stated an understanding that homosexuality itself as a predisposition is not sinful, but rather that the sexual expression of homosexuality is sinful.Footnote ¹² The Diocese of Sydney has a long history of opposition to homosexualityFootnote ¹³ but currently holds to a similar view to that of ACNA which sees same-sex attraction (SSA) as not being sinful, but homosexual behaviour as being sinful.Footnote ¹⁴ This also then leads on to opposition to same-sex marriage both as a civil rite and as a religious rite,Footnote ¹⁵ but in a Western context appears to no longer involve calls for the criminalization of same-gender sexual behaviour. So there appears to be a general position in the Western membership of Gafcon that accepts that in a pluralistic society homosexual behaviour is not to be criminalized; and further accepts that some persons are same-sex attracted and that this is not sinful. Likewise, discrimination or vilification of same-sex attracted persons is condemned. However, same-gender sexual behaviour is rejected as being sinful and accordingly same-sex marriage both as a civil rite and a religious rite is also opposed. More recently, issues of gender have also become a matter of concern, with most of those concerned with Gafcon holding to a traditional view of gender as being essentially binary and God’s design and prescription for humanity.Footnote ¹⁶

But Gafcon is far more than a conservative Western movement. The international website for Gafcon lists twelve provinces and seven branches with another two being formed.Footnote ¹⁷ The provinces listed include six African provinces (South Sudan, Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Congo, and Rwanda) and three other provinces (South America, Myanmar and Chile) which are aligned both with Gafcon and the Anglican Communion. Three of the provinces listed (Europe, North America and Brazil) are not part of the Anglican Communion. The branches listed include the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa (which is REACH-SA,Footnote ¹⁸ formerly the Church of England in South Africa, which is not part of the Anglican Communion), Tanzania, and the Diocese of Sunyani in Ghana.

It is claimed that Gafcon represents two-thirds of the Anglican Communion; for example, Gafcon Australia stated that the ‘global movement now embraces over 70% of the world’s worshipping Anglicans’.Footnote ¹⁹ This figure seems to be largely based on the membership of two of the largest Anglican churches in Africa, being that of Nigeria and Uganda. Now all statistics can be rubbery, including this one: one suspects that Gafcon or non-Gafcon Anglicanism as concepts mean even less to the average parishioner in Nigeria than they do to the average parishioner in Melbourne. But it does pick up an important point: that Gafcon is as much centred in the Global South as in the West. But again, there is a need for some caution here.

Gafcon overlaps significantly the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GFSA), with many of the provinces listed as belonging to GFSA also belonging to Gafcon.Footnote ²⁰ However, many others of the provinces listed as belonging to GFSA are not aligned with Gafcon (mainly those in Oceania and Asia) and the list of those belonging to GFSA includes the Diocese of Sydney and ACNA but does not include the Anglican Church of Southern Africa. While the Anglican Church of Melanesia and the Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea are listed as members of the Global South, they are not listed as being affiliated with Gafcon,Footnote ²¹ and most of the Anglican provinces in Asia are also not listed. So while there is overlap, it would not be fair to claim that Gafcon speaks for the Global South as if it were one entity united in support for Gafcon. However, very clearly the sub-Saharan African Churches apart from South Africa form the major portion of the supporters of Gafcon. Why do they adhere to Gafcon?

There is certainly much opposition to same-gender sexuality; while the Western churches would accept that same-sex attraction is not of itself sinful, and would allow for basic civil rights and non-vilification of homosexual persons, this is certainly not the case in Africa. There has been significant involvement by African churches in campaigns against homosexuality. For example, in Nigeria the view has been put by senior clergy that homosexuality is evil and celibacy is not ordained.Footnote ²² In Uganda the view appears to be that the Church of England is in error even in the appointment of celibate homosexuals to ministry,Footnote ²³ and more recently in Ghana the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Ghana has been reported as supporting legislation to increase penalties on homosexual behaviour and otherwise prohibit advocacy for LGBTI+ persons;Footnote ²⁴ to the extent that the Archbishop of Canterbury felt it necessary to express his grave concerns to the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Ghana.Footnote ²⁵ However, it has now been reported that the House of Bishops in Ghana has reservations about aspects of the proposed legislation, even though continuing to oppose same-gender sexual behaviour on both cultural and biblical grounds.Footnote ²⁶ Both the Western members of Gafcon and the African members have a strong opposition to homosexual behaviour, but do appear to have differing views on the nature of homosexuality and its relationship to culture.

However, it is possible to make too much of this concern about homosexuality. As much as it is an issue in itself, it also reflects other concerns about errors perceived in the Anglican Communion.

For Western members of Gafcon, there is much material to be found making clear opposition to liberalism and progressive biblical understandings.Footnote ²⁷ For example, in the brief history of Gafcon from its website it is made clear that Gafcon opposes liberalism and the collapse of biblical witness:Footnote ²⁸

Likewise, the reasons for Africans being involved in Gafcon certainly go beyond homosexuality. Archbishop Ben Kwashi from Nigeria, who is now General Secretary of Gafcon, was asked in an interview in 2018 ‘What led to GAFCON?’ He responded in part that:

Earlier comments by Archbishop Peter Akinola (one of the founders of Gafcon) bear this out. In a speech at the opening of the first Jerusalem Conference in June 2008,Footnote ³⁰ Archbishop Akinola makes references to the ‘revisionist agenda’ and is strongly critical of those who would pursue humanist or revisionist thought which repudiate biblical authority. However, one of his constant themes was in defence of African Anglicanism against Western liberalism:

There does therefore seem to be some differences between the understanding of the aims and roles of Gafcon among conservative Western churches compared with that of their African colleagues. It is possible that the evils of colonialism and a possible rejection of control by wealthy Americans and other Western churches are far more important for the African churches and have little touched the consciousness of Western churches within Gafcon. This therefore should give cause for caution when trying to analyse the motivations of Gafcon. Just like the Anglican Communion as a whole, we should not think of it as being monolithic. Gafcon is a complex and varied creature.

But it is a movement that is having an impact on the Anglican Communion and the witness of Anglicanism in the world. In practical terms, what is Gafcon trying to achieve?

There is a need for some caution here. As for the Anglican Communion as a whole, motives and methods vary considerably. There is enough material to indicate that the African churches within Gafcon have a different agenda to the Western members. The African churches wish to be heard and to have a significant and autonomous influence in Anglicanism, and a desire to ensure that they are not subject to forms of neo-colonialism. There is much work to be done by theologians and missiologists in this area, as the Western church needs to learn and truly partner with the church in the majority world, in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania. However, one would suggest that the church in the majority world faces bigger challenges than same-sex attraction, and that true partnership remains difficult if epithets like ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ are simply used as pejoratives and thrown around with gay abandon. Partnership is not about takeovers in any direction; rather it requires respectful listening. The Western churches have been appalling in this regard in the past and still have a very long way to go, but the evils of the past do not justify evils in the present.

The Western members of Gafcon appear to have different challenges. Generally they are not in a majority position in their home churches, and therefore there has been a tendency to reject the mainline Anglican churches and strike out on their own. This is most obviously seen in North America, where The Episcopal Church in the United States (TEC) has long supported women’s ordination and then the equality of same-sex couples, even to the extent of forcing out bishops who in good conscience cannot allow for the blessing of same-sex marriage.Footnote ³¹ In the face of such illiberalism from a liberal church, a number of people have left TEC for ACNA.Footnote ³² At present ACNA claims 972 congregations and about 127,000 active members across Canada and the USA in 2019–2020,Footnote ³³ compared with TEC claiming 1.8 million members in 2019Footnote ³⁴ and another 359,000 members (in 2206 congregations) in the Anglican Church of Canada in 2017.Footnote ³⁵

However, in each Western jurisdiction local matters impact the progress of Gafcon considerably. While ACNA has enjoyed some success in the USA, Gafcon appears to have made less of an impact in Aotearoa New Zealand. The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia (ACANZP) approved the blessing of same-sex marriages in May 2018.Footnote ³⁶ In response, a small number of parishes left ACANZP and formed the Church of Confessing Anglicans in Aotearoa New Zealand (CCAANZ)Footnote ³⁷ under the auspices of the Primates Council of Gafcon, with Jay Behan being consecrated as bishop in October 2019Footnote ³⁸ in a service led by Archbishop Foley Beach (Chair of Gafcon) and with the former General Secretary of Gafcon (and retired Archbishop of Sydney) Peter Jensen preaching and a number of other bishops from Australia and overseas participating. At present CCAANZ claims to have 17 parishes,Footnote ³⁹ compared with 13 diocesesFootnote ⁴⁰ in ACANZP, and approximately 500 parishesFootnote ⁴¹ in ACANZP.

The situation in Aotearoa New Zealand is instructive. Possibly one of the reasons that CCAANZ is a relatively minor player is that ACANZP allows clergy to have freedom of conscience – there is no form of compulsion whereby clergy are required to take part in the blessing of same-sex relationships. Another important element is the way in which ACANZP is structured. With its three-tikanga system there are three equal partners in ACANZP – Tikanga Māori in New Zealand with five dioceses, the Tikanga Pasefika formed around the Diocese of Polynesia with its cathedral in Fiji, and Tikanga Pakeha. ‘Pakeha’ refers to the non-Māori who have settled in New Zealand, and there are seven Pakeha dioceses. Each Tikanga has an archbishop, forming a collective primacy. Prior to 2018 the Tikanga Māori and Tikanga Pasefika had blocked the blessing of same-sex marriage, but allowed it at the 2018 General Synod. In particular, Tikanga Pasefika strongly opposes the blessing of same-sex marriage,Footnote ⁴² and abstained on this matter at the General Synod. The General Synod in 2018 therefore also set up the Anglican Community of St Mark as the vehicle for allowing parishes who did not agree with the blessing of same-sex relationships to remain within ACANZP, under the guidance of a bishop who agreed with their views. There are currently nine congregations affiliated with this community.Footnote ⁴³ However, the grouping who now form CCAANZ declined to follow this avenue. Therefore, one of the criticisms of Gafcon was that it was acting in a colonialist way, overriding the voices and efforts of the indigenous people of Oceania who seek to maintain the unity of the church within the setting of over 200 years of shared history.Footnote ⁴⁴ The particular history of ACANZP and the way in which CCCANZ was formed have accordingly led to a somewhat different response to Gafcon in New Zealand compared to the United States.

England and Australia are again different. It the United Kingdom ‘Gafcon GB & Europe’ (Gafcon GBE) is the regional expression.Footnote ⁴⁵ There is also an ‘Anglican Network in Europe’ (ANiE). Gafcon GBE remains inside the Church of England and the other Anglican Churches in the United Kingdom, while ANiE – which was launched in April 2021 – is not within the Anglican Communion. However, the two bodies have a close relationship; Bishop Andy Lines who heads ANiE (and therefore is outside the Church of England or the Anglican Communion) is also a member of the Gafcon GBE Council of Reference.Footnote ⁴⁶

Australia again is quite different. This is possibly the Western Church where Gafcon is strongest within the councils of the church. The largest and wealthiest of the 23 dioceses in Australia is the Diocese of Sydney, which has had a leading role in Gafcon since its formation. The chair of Gafcon Australia, the Right Reverend Dr Richard Condie, is also Bishop of Tasmania. There is also support for Gafcon in most of the other Australian dioceses, with several regional dioceses being strong supporters.

In 2020 the Appellate Tribunal of the Anglican Church of Australia upheld a regulation of the Diocese of Wangaratta requiring a certain form of service to be used in the blessing of civil marriages (including same-gender marriages).Footnote ⁴⁷ The Tribunal also considered legislation from the Diocese of Newcastle that was designed to protect clergy who either conducted a blessing of a same-sex marriage or refused to conduct such a blessing.Footnote ⁴⁸ This decision was rather equivocal but it did allow that within the constraints of the national constitution the Diocese of Newcastle had authority to legislate on these issues in regards to its definition of offences under the Clergy Discipline Ordinance. As in New Zealand, the church legislation of Newcastle and Wangaratta had generous provisions respecting conscientious objection by those opposed to the blessing of same-sex relationships. However, in response, Gafcon Australia issued a document called Commitment 2020 in December 2020.Footnote ⁴⁹

Gafcon Australia and Commitment 2020

In Commitment 2020 the Board of Gafcon Australia first stated ‘That our understanding of “orthodox Anglican faith” is expressed in the Jerusalem Declaration’.Footnote ⁵⁰ Shortly after: ‘We affirm the Jerusalem Declaration, which in section 13 says: “We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed”’.Footnote ⁵¹ Immediately follows ‘five possible scenarios where faithful Anglicans will believe that they can no longer accept the ministry of their bishop’, with these scenarios being listed as:Footnote ⁵²

1. 1. Where a Bishop no longer personally believes the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Australia (the doctrine is then explained in a footnote as that being the common understanding prior to the Appellate Tribunal decision),

2. 2. Where a Bishop fails to act in restraining or disciplining a cleric from acting against this doctrine,

3. 3. Where a Synod adopts a resolution contrary to this doctrine and a Bishop allows actions consistent with that resolution,

4. 4. Where the Anglican Church of Australia changes its doctrine or discipline to a position that is not biblical (the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is given as an example of this), or

5. 5. Where a Bishop disciplines a cleric for acting consistently with the doctrine of the ACA.

Gafcon Australia then propose to assist those who disaffiliate by setting up an extra-provincial diocese (EPD) under the auspices of the Gafcon Primates’ Council. It is noted that: ‘The Gafcon EPD will be a parallel jurisdiction with the existing Anglican Church of Australia and have a geographic spread across the whole country. It is not envisioned that this will include Anglicans from Dioceses where sound doctrine is upheld.’Footnote ⁵³

Further details were added to Commitment 2020 in a media release in July 2021,Footnote ⁵⁴ which was mainly concerned with the administrative details of the proposed new Diocese. The chair of Gafcon Australia, Bishop Richard Condie, confirmed that Gafcon Australia upholds the Jerusalem Declaration, which is described as ‘a statement of contemporary Anglican Orthodoxy that guides [Gafcon]’.Footnote ⁵⁵

This then gives rise to an obvious question: is ‘sound doctrine’ or ‘Anglican Orthodoxy’ only to be found within Gafcon? Is the Jerusalem Declaration an accurate representation of orthodoxy, or is it possible to be an orthodox Anglican and not assent to the Jerusalem Declaration? These are important questions. If Gafcon is claiming that the Declaration is the standard of Anglican orthodoxy, then it is implicitly rejecting the rest of the Anglican Communion as being either heterodox or heretical. Alternatively, if there is orthodoxy outside of Gafcon, then arguably Gafcon is schismatic and possibly therefore heterodox. The claims made by Gafcon are significant and need to be made quite clear.

Consequently the author of this paper exchanged open correspondence with the Chair of Gafcon Australia.Footnote ⁵⁶ The correspondence consisted of a letter to Bishop Richard Condie on 5 March 2021,Footnote ⁵⁷ a response from Bishop Richard on 11 April 2021,Footnote ⁵⁸ and a final response from the author on 23 April 2021.Footnote ⁵⁹ In the final letter, five points were put to the Chair of Gafcon Australia, mirroring the above discussion:

1. 1. Does Gafcon Australia accept that orthodox Bishops and Dioceses exist in the Anglican Church of Australia outside of Gafcon?

2. 2. Will Gafcon accept into the Extra-Provincial Diocese parishes that have left orthodox Bishops and Dioceses?

3. 3. If Gafcon will accept parishes leaving orthodox Bishops and Dioceses, how is this not encouraging schism?

4. 4. If Gafcon will not accept parishes leaving orthodox Bishops and Dioceses, how does Gafcon propose to determine the orthodoxy of those Bishops and Dioceses?

5. 5. If Gafcon will accept parishes leaving Bishops or Dioceses who have departed orthodoxy, how does Gafcon propose to determine the orthodoxy of Bishops and Dioceses – and by which authority do they do so?

The author is grateful to Bishop Condie for his responses, but notes that to date no response has been received to these questions. Clearly these questions and any response to them revolve around the way in which Anglican orthodoxy is determined. The question as to what ‘orthodoxy’ means as a concept is vast, but in this context we come back to the Jerusalem Declaration and other declarative statements of Gafcon, especially The Letter to the Churches 2018. But what is about the Jerusalem Declaration that makes it possible for an orthodox Anglican to refuse to assent to it?

The Jerusalem Declaration

In the Jerusalem Statement Gafcon affirms the traditional bases of Anglicanism: Holy Scriptures, the Creeds,Footnote ⁶⁰ the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. The Ordinal encapsulates the three-fold order of ministry. However, being in communion with the See of Canterbury is not seen as essential to Anglicanism. The Statement then goes on to state that the Jerusalem Declaration is the basis of fellowship. Anglicans are therefore invited to assent to the Declaration in order to align with Gafcon. In Australia, for example, ‘Our understanding of “orthodox Anglican faith” is expressed in the Jerusalem Declaration’.Footnote ⁶¹

The Declaration Footnote ⁶² starts by invoking the Holy Trinity, and then a preface which concludes ‘we agree to chart a way forward together that promotes and protects the biblical gospel and mission to the world, solemnly declaring the following tenets of orthodoxy which underpin our Anglican identity’. There then follows 14 sections. To what extent are they uncontroversial tenets of orthodoxy and to what extent is there material which might go beyond that which might be considered tenets of orthodoxy?

If we take Christian orthodoxy to refer to the doctrines accepted by the universal Christian Church since the Great Councils of the unified church up until the fifth century ce, then most of the Declaration restates orthodoxy. It expresses doctrine espoused by the catholic Church. However, there are some additions that have been introduced. For example:

In Section 2: ‘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.’ The idea of the Bible having a plain and canonical sense, respectful of the Church’s historic and consensual reading, is something that needs far greater explanation. A mantra such as ‘where the meaning of the Bible is clear, follow it’ is of little help. For example, it is quite clear in Lk. 6.35 that the taking of interest on money is against the teaching of Jesus – but little seems to be made of this by anyone in the modern Church. It could be argued that the ‘church’s historic and consensual reading’ has rendered another understanding of this passage – but in this case are we not reverting to the authority of reason and tradition? If so, why is one particular moral issue seen as clear and incontrovertible while others seem to be matters of acceptable controversy? What is the Church’s historic and consensual reading, for example, on military service or slavery? Does this add any clarity, or rather does it distract? It does appear that the authors of the Declaration were determined to go beyond the formula set out by the Reformers in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles, and in doing so clarity does not seem to have been added. However, it does hint that it is perhaps issues of hermeneutics which are important in the motivators for Gafcon and which underlie its understanding of divisions in the Anglican Church. It might be helpful if these hermeneutical understandings were further elaborated by Gafcon.

The next issue is with Section 4, which states that the Thirty-Nine Articles are authoritative for Anglicans today. It claims an authority not to be found in the Articles themselves; and an authority that is not recognized by many orthodox Anglicans. Not every province of the Anglican Communion or of Gafcon accepts them as currently authoritative. For example, the Anglican Church of North America states in its constitution (Article 1(7)):Footnote ⁶³

Clearly ACNA locate the Thirty-Nine Articles in their historical context, and while expressing ‘fundamental principles’ this declaration falls short of declaring them to be normatively authoritative for Anglicans today. The fundamental principles expressed might be authoritative, but the actual text appears less so. Other provinces within the Anglican Communion go further; for example, the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Melanesia makes no mention of the Thirty-Nine Articles, but simply records as the basis of faith ‘The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments [and] The Catholic Creeds.’Footnote ⁶⁴

In Australia as clergy we are called to assent to the Articles, but (as implied by ACNA) parts of the Thirty-Nine Articles are clearly rooted in the controversies of sixteenth-century England. Take, for example, Article XXXVII. Those of us who are opposed to conscription or capital punishment might find that particular article less than authoritative today, even though we assent to it as the historical position of the Church of England. What of Article XXV? Some parts of the Anglican Communion interpret it to mean that there are only two sacraments, and others (such as predominantly Anglo-Catholic provinces within and without Gafcon) would interpret it to mean that there are seven sacraments, of which two were instituted by our Lord. For example, the Constitution of ACNA states that ‘We confess Baptism and the Supper of the Lord to be Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself in the Gospel’Footnote ⁶⁵ but later goes on to state that it ‘affirms our Lord’s teaching that Holy Matrimony, commonly called a Sacrament (Article 25 and ACNA Catechism 124-125), is a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman’.Footnote ⁶⁶ The Anglican Church of Melanesia states ‘The Church of this Province accepts and teaches that the following are Sacraments of the Church of God: - Baptism, Holy Communion, Confirmation, Holy Marriage, Holy Anointing, Penance and Holy Order [sic].’Footnote ⁶⁷ So, two or seven sacraments, or both? In what sense then is Article XXV authoritative today?

The point of the above discussion on Section 4 is not to engage in detailed debate about the validity of the Thirty-Nine Articles. Rather it points out the variety of views on the Thirty-Nine Articles within the Anglican Communion and even within Gafcon, that are at odds with the position endorsed in the Declaration. I am not sure that either ACNA or the Anglican Church of Melanesia would be considered anything other than orthodox. Accordingly it is argued here that it is possible to hold to orthodox doctrine and yet not hold to the position that the Thirty-Nine Articles are authoritative today.

In Section 8 we come to the issue of gender and sexuality. Now, this is a novelty in that it takes a subsidiary matter (gender and marriage) and makes it into a tenet of orthodoxy and therefore apparently it is a matter of doctrine. This is a somewhat novel approach to doctrine. The Creeds are instructive at this point. They do not discuss normative moral issues. At best they acknowledge sin – ‘We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins’. Yet nowhere in the Creeds as doctrinal statements is there any further development as to the nature of sin or normative lists of sinful behaviour. In short, the Creeds don’t do ethics. The absence of moral issues from traditional understanding of doctrine, and especially from credal statements is of great interest, but unfortunately the documents from Gafcon fail to develop this issue and state why moral issues are now to be considered doctrinal issues.

Section 10 has the same problem. No matter how praiseworthy it is, and noble an aspiration which hopefully all Christians would agree with – it is not a matter of orthodox doctrine. At best, as for Section 8, it is a subsidiary doctrinal matter. Now it could be argued here that moral issues should be part of doctrine, but this would itself be a novelty. Rather, Gafcon could have argued that some moral issues are so important that they are a first order issue on which there can be no disagreement, and that any Christian who falls on the wrong side of that issue can therefore not be considered to be orthodox. But the Jerusalem Declaration fails to do so and elucidate this is in a clear way. It is not clear as to what is objectionable in same-sex relationships – is it physical expressions of love, or sexual expressions of love, or being in a relationship which might usually be considered sexual but may not be? If a line in the sand is going to be drawn, it needs to be quite clear.

The Jerusalem Declaration faced the general problem for all attempts to draw up something new. In attempting to restate traditional concepts, instead it introduces novel concepts. This invites further division between all those who claim to be orthodox. In attempting to add to the general deposit of faith accepted by all the faithful, they must fail to do so. Article XXI of the Thirty-Nine Articles attempts to deal with the Authority of General Councils, noting that they can only be gathered together with the commandment and will of Princes – and then notes that they can still err. So wherein is the authority of Gafcon to determine new elements of doctrine? Can they claim to act without error? Of course, Gafcon would argue that they are not attempting to introduce anything new, but simply restate the timeless truths of Christianity. However, that arguably is not the case. In the Jerusalem Declaration at least four novelties are introduced:

• Further elaboration of the nature of scripture and what it means

• Giving the Thirty-Nine Articles contemporary normative authority

• Introduction of gender and sexuality as doctrinal matters

• Introduction of care for the environment as a doctrinal matter.

So for all these reasons there is enough to indicate that an Anglican holding to orthodoxy might refuse to assent to the Jerusalem Declaration. But there is a more fundamental objection that an orthodox Anglican might have to the Jerusalem Declaration. The Declaration discusses at some length moral issues. The Letter to the Churches 2018 Footnote ⁶⁸ follows up on the Declaration and expands the concerns on issues of gender, marriage and sexuality to cover approximately one-third of the Letter. Yet in all this discussion of important moral issues, not once are the Great Commandments (Mt. 22.34-40) mentioned or elaborated upon.

Now this does seem to be a notable omission. If moral issues are to be grounded in Scripture, then first and foremost the Great Commandments should be both invoked and used. The Great Commission (Mt. 28.16-20) which is invoked includes Jesus’ words ‘Go therefore and make disciplines of all nations … teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.’ Clearly the Great Commandments, taught only six chapters before in the same Gospel, are central to the Great Commission and the moral teaching of the church. All the normative moral teachings of the church should start and finish with the Great Commandments.

But the Great Commandments are not mentioned once. In the Declaration ‘love’ or its cognates are only to be found in Section 1, in the context of our response to the love of God. The implications of that love are not worked through. Now, it can be reasonably responded that the Declaration is a summary, not a theological tract, and that therefore there was not room to talk about love of God and of neighbour. However, the Letter does set out to include theological reflection on issues of gender, marriage and sexuality at some length, and in that document love is only mentioned once, in the context of loving but firm discipline.

This seems to be a wholly unsatisfactory statement of orthodox moral beliefs. Now it could be responded that love is not to be found in the Creeds, and that is certainly true: but as stated previously, the Creeds don’t do ethics. The Declaration and the Letter do ethics, and the failure to affirm love of God and of neighbour in that context does not reflect well. In both documents there is much talk of sin and repentance, but none of love. Consequently it is quite open for an orthodox Anglican to see the Declaration as being deficient in this regard, and therefore not a document that can be assented to as a statement of Anglican orthodoxy. Without a consideration of the love of neighbour, the Declaration is probably deficient, and the Letter is certainly deficient.

Now, none of the above is to cast doubt on the sincerity or integrity of those who adhere to the Declaration and the other documents produced by Gafcon. However, they do show that is quite possible to be an orthodox Anglican and not accept the Declaration as an adequate or entirely reasonable or biblical statement of Anglican orthodoxy.

Issues of Schism

Accordingly, the questions can be legitimately raised as to whether the Declaration is the statement of Anglican orthodoxy (to which orthodox Anglicans must or should assent) or whether it is a statement of Anglican orthodoxy, which orthodox Anglicans may in good conscience not assent to. It is a real question: is orthodoxy only to be found in Gafcon, or is it to be found outside Gafcon as well?

Now, if Gafcon claims to be the only repository of orthodoxy within Anglicanism, then it is schismatic, as it seeks to exclude other Anglicans who are also orthodox. If Gafcon is not the only repository of orthodoxy within Anglicanism, then it needs to explain why it is taking action – in New Zealand, in Australia and arguably elsewhere – to set up parallel jurisdictions that have the effect of dividing the Body of Christ.

The matter of the division of the Body of Christ is quite serious. Jesus wills that we should all be one (Jn 17.20-21). We also know that in practice where there is division, there is usually then conflict or discord, and certainly a division of the witness to Christ. Those of us who have witnessed division in the Church understand it is relatively easy to divide, but considerably harder to put back together again. Therefore the onus is on those who would encompass division within the Body of Christ, to indicate why such division is necessary.

Clearly, such division has occurred in the past: the Anglican Church is a result of the fissures of the Reformation when an entire branch of the Catholic Church left the oversight of the Papacy. But the Anglican Church then attempted, with some success, to hold together as one: the Thirty-Nine Articles are part of that history. It is not simply enough to label one’s opponents as being unorthodox, and therefore rejecting them: there is a need to explain in far greater detail what being orthodox entails. This is a challenge that Gafcon must apply themselves to if they intend to use definitions of ‘sound doctrine’ or ‘orthodoxy’ as the sword by which the godly and the ungodly will be separated. Alternatively, if Gafcon is defining a certain type of behaviour as the way in which those who are fit to remain in the church may remain, and those who are unfit are to be excluded, then that behaviour needs to be well defined and justified. After all, we should be extraordinarily cautious about attempts to judge those who are righteous and are allowed to be within the church, and those who are to be excluded: ‘Judge not, lest ye be judged’ (Mt. 7.1-3).

Indeed, the reformer John Calvin suggested that we should refrain from such matters. From Calvin’s commentary of the parable of the wheat and the tares (Mt. 13.24-30):Footnote ⁶⁹

As Calvin states, the children of God are to be armed with patience. Indeed, patience is part of what it is be loving (1 Cor. 13.4). Even where fellow Christians are judged to be especially sinful – ‘bad men and hypocrites’ – we are called to persevere as one. Following from Calvin’s interpretation, the onus again is on those who seek to remove the weeds or tares, to show why that is a better option than allowing the wheat and tares to grow together. I would suggest that the documents of Gafcon do not give a sufficient account of this need.

It can be argued that at times of great evil there is a time to make declarations with courage even if that means repudiating the official church. The best example of this in recent time is the Barmen Declaration of 1934.Footnote ⁷⁰ It sets out to define a moral stance of resistance to the government of Adolf Hitler, as the Nazis attempted to suborn the German evangelical churches. It was a heroic call to spiritual arms against the powers of evil ranged against the Church of God. However, it was a statement of orthodoxy and Christian morality in the face of that which was clearly and palpably evil; I am not persuaded that the Anglican Communion is in such a position.