John Clapton - 05 July 2008 02:25 PM

Peter Jensen is right.  It is not the issue of homosexuality that distinguishes those who attended GAFCON from the rest of the Anglican Communion.

The real issue is a very different view of ecclesiology.

It places the primary locus of power in the hands of congregations who can pick and choose who they will receive episcopal oversight from.

This is at odds with the history of diocesan churches for nearly 2000 years, but completely in accord with those who have followed a congregational form of government.

John,

The important phrase in what you’ve said here is ”nearly 2000 years”.  Diocesan structures are a useful tool to assist local churches in ministering the gospel, but they are not a Biblical structure.  New Testament ecclesiology emphasises the role and responsibilities of local congregations very strongly, and our use of a diocesan system ought not to override those responsibilities.

On the other hand, GAFCON by its very nature still recognises and seeks to work within diocesan structures.  It just doesn’t assume that they, or the worldwide Anglican Communion, are immutable.

Regards,

Bob

The real issue is a very different view of ecclesiology.

A small percent of the people at GAFCon would have the typical Sydney Anglican ecclesiology that you have referred to. Many would have an ecclesiology which would be classed as more traditionally Anglican.

However the desperate need is for orthodoxy in bishops (which was never envisaged as a problem by the early Fathers such as Ignatius). Which is more important… to keep ecclesiological concerns uppermost, or to keep orthodoxy in teaching… hmmm… it looks like GAFCON has put orthodoxy over ecclesiology in this concern.

Our modern view of local congregations may not be synonymous with what existed in New Testament times.  It is our Anglican approach to orders of ministry, as ordered in the New Testament, that has led to a diocesan ecclesiology.  The locus of power and authority is in the bishop and the diocese.  Congregations do not stand alone.  They exist in a fellowship as is our godhead a fellowship of Father Son and Holy Spirit.

The bishop is really the minister of a diocese which is one community of believers worshipping in many places - originally in homes.  The presbyters that have been appointed to local congregations are the “vicars” of the bishop - stand-ins.  They and their congregations have no authority outside the bishop.

What has developed over the centuries into the Anglican Communion is a fellowship of Diocese that recognize and respect the authority of each bishop in a diocese.  Some Diocese affiliate into Provinces but there is still a genuine respect for the authority of a bishop within the diocese over which they are appointed.

What has happened with GAFCON is that a group has said they can no longer respect the authority of a bishop within their own diocese.  This is clearly the case as the church in Australia has had to develop a protocol for alternative episcopal oversight for those who will not submit to a bishop who is female.

Where this will ultimately lead I do not know, but it opens the door in my view for priests and congregations to seek alternative oversight because they disagree with the bishop’s view of the Atonement or their view of the authority of Scripture or any other theological controversy.

Another practice that is already evident in Australia is of congregations in one diocese “planting” like-minded congregations in another diocese with that congregation not being subject to the diocesan structures and authority where it exists.

I don’t see the evidence of GAFCON still recognizing and seeking to “work within diocesan structures.”

This new federation of “confessing” Anglican churches is actually moving away from what it means to be Anglican even though much of what they profess is catholic and orthodox.  But they really can’t claim to be the true “Anglicans” and that the rest of the Communion are the ones who have strayed from the orthodox way.

John Clapton - 05 July 2008 07:57 PM

Our modern view of local congregations may not be synonymous with what existed in New Testament times.

No argument with you there John - but I think that any equation of the diocese with the NT concept of the local church is a much bigger stretch!
Bob

Surely the implication is that an Anglo-Catholic congregation, like Christchurch St Lawerence could ask to be placed under the Bishop of Ballarat and also legitimately argue for the use of the chasuble and the reserved sacrament.

Furthermore there is a very good article in the BRITISH CHURCH NEWSPAPER criticising GAFCON from a conservative position.

I find it indefensible that some bishops have signed the Declaration of Jerusalem and are happily still violating the 39 articles, particularly article 28.

Indeed the Cathedral rosary group in the Cathedral of Fort Worth is still going strong!

link?

Hello Bob,

I was just showing that to my knowledge the diocesan model of ecclesiology grew out of the biblical orders of ministry that grew out of the house-church model of church evident in the NT, not that there was biblical warrant for Diocese.

Ecclesiology is one area of theology in which a number of very different models of church can claim Biblical warrant.  The Anglican Communion is derived from a tradition of church that is diocesan, not congregational.  Those who wish to claim the attributes of congregationalism are moving away from one of the essential elements of the Anglican Communion.  This may not be a bad thing for them, but it does mean that they are moving away from where they were.

I would say the same is true of the Atonement.  Some like the penal substitutionary model so much that they can’t allow the possibility of any other understanding of the Atonement.  There are others in Scripture as well as in the considered thinking of the church down through the centuries - some more efficacious than others.  In my view, no one theory says it all, and each adds a nuance that adds to the completeness of the picture.

Once again your understanding of ecclesiology John Clapton is from the more Anglo-Catholic view. For instance:

The presbyters that have been appointed to local congregations are the “vicars” of the bishop - stand-ins. 

Not in Sydney Diocese, nor in places with Rectors (which means rulers). Once installed/inducted (or now “commenced") they have much more tenure, rights and responsibilities than simply being a vicar of the bishop. They have vowed canonical obedience, but when the Bishop strays from Biblical positions, or is asking something that the Rector considers not to be valid & not canonical, they can say no to the bishop. This may not be common practice in your diocese, but it has been a long established tradition & legal right of this diocese. On the basis of this, one former Archbishop of Sydney has been quoted as saying that he had over 200 popes sitting in their parishes.

What has happened with GAFCON is that a group has said they can no longer respect the authority of a bishop within their own diocese.  This is clearly the case as the church in Australia has had to develop a protocol for alternative episcopal oversight for those who will not submit to a bishop who is female.

What of the CofE in England organising for flying bishops and calling for TEC to institute the same?

You seem to argue that this is a solution that came from Australia as a novelty, instead of it being a well thought through solution which (with proper acceptance by bishops) would keep order and the opportunity for continued fellowship when people are deeply concerned over novel moves within the Anglican Communion and within their own Dioceses.

Another practice that is already evident in Australia is of congregations in one diocese “planting” like-minded congregations in another diocese with that congregation not being subject to the diocesan structures and authority where it exists.

This happens regularly in the big city. Even when I was Rector of a small village, we had 2 churches begin and stop while I was there, and I led services in a Uniting Church Building 3 out of every 4 weeks of the month in the neighbouring village.

That is life in the 21st century.

This new federation of “confessing” Anglican churches is actually moving away from what it means to be Anglican even though much of what they profess is catholic and orthodox.  But they really can’t claim to be the true “Anglicans” and that the rest of the Communion are the ones who have strayed from the orthodox way.

My jaw is still hitting the ground on this one!

Female priests… female bishops… practising gay people ordained as being valid and godly… openly practising homosecuals being consecrated as bishops… and others sitting back and applauding this as being the right thing to do…

Those who oppose this are the ones who have strayed from the orthodox way… LOL ...  cry....  cry .... unbelievable!

The bishop is really the minister of a diocese which is one community of believers worshipping in many places - originally in homes.  The presbyters that have been appointed to local congregations are the “vicars” of the bishop - stand-ins.  They and their congregations have no authority outside the bishop.

What has developed over the centuries into the Anglican Communion is a fellowship of Diocese that recognize and respect the authority of each bishop in a diocese.  Some Diocese affiliate into Provinces but there is still a genuine respect for the authority of a bishop within the diocese over which they are appointed.

What has happened with GAFCON is that a group has said they can no longer respect the authority of a bishop within their own diocese.

Article XIX does not define the church as being the bishop and those associated with the bishop. It defines the church in terms of the “congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance ...”

Article XX clearly limits the authority of the church (and, therefore if we use your terms, to the bishop) to only those things which are not “contrary to God’s Word written” and clearly states that it cannot expound one place of Scripture against another place of Scripture, and cannot decree anything against the holy writ.

Artcile XXIII says ministers of the Sacrament and preachers cannot appoint that authoity on themselves, which is where the role of the Bishop certainly does apply in the Articles.

& don’t forget Article XXXIV which says that orderly & approved changes of Traditions and Ceremonies (as long as they are not repugnant to the word of God) are to be expected over time. Each national church (thus we also have the bud of what would become Provinces) can make changes (which you have almost described as an evolutionary change that global expansion brought within Anglicanism, but it is there in the Articles).

Hi Rob
5 posts in a row and yet the margin info still says you’ve posted 996 times.  Is some dark and sinister force trying to deny you your 1,000?!  Keep trying . . .
Bob

Robert Denham - 06 July 2008 12:01 PM

On the basis of this, one former Archbishop of Sydney has been quoted as saying that he had over 200 popes sitting in their parishes.

While so very droll, minister :) it did understate the very healthy balance we have between congregational autonomy and episcopal oversight (ie the rector is nominally independent only as long as the parish is paying its way).

If Congregationalism was the divine pattern for the NT church, why did mono-episcopacy triumph so early? It the NT Church and the immediate sub-apostolic church was full of Robert Denham’s, where is the historical record of a revolt agaimst this “heresy.” Non such exists.

Interestingly GAFCON places emphasis on the consensus of the Church’s reading of Scripure. That is dangerous for evangelicals .We see in the early Church , episcopacy was instituted by our Blessed Lord, that re-marraige after divorce is adultery, that baptism is regenerative and the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ and is the unbloody offering and re-prenstation of the once and for all sacrifice of Calvary, the pure oblation of the gentiles as predicted by the Prophet Malachi..