I wrote something about GAFCON for the Daily Tele. You might pray that the person responsible sees fit to post it, and has the time to do that also.

Update: Thanks to those who prayed. The editorial is here.

Gordon, Have you thought through GAFCON with its variable elastic standard of orthodoxy.

Its refusal to deal with the words of our Blessed Lord on divorce and re-marriage.

Its complete blackhole on women’s ordination as presbyters.

The fact Anglo-Catholics will subscribe to its declaration and return home to continue the practices and doctrines condemend in the thirty nine articles.

When the euphoria ends I do hope those who attended can examine their attitude to truth. rememeberin that in the Bible to wish God speed is to share in the wicked work.

Does our Lord honour this? Does he teach that some are more orthodox than others, even within the orthodox Are not all his commandments to be obeyed?

Can a leopard change its spots?
Can even an archbishop or bishop change?
Can a person go to Gafcon & come back to try to reform the beliefs and practices of a church?
Can Robert be generous?

I know there will be a zillion post scripts to Gafon by those who were there, but I wondered what everyone made of it.

Will it kind of dribble away as people get back into diocesan and parish life?

What did you think of the declaration? (Re point made by someone I don’t want to mention, I personally think there had to be a bit of latitude to accommodate women’s ordination, Anglo Catholics, afterall the Anglican Church survided and prospered quite a few hundred yerars with these divisions before the liberals walked beyond the circle of acceptability, which in truth they began doing at the end of the 19th century)

Can the new structure build some permanence, add accredited theological colleges, make accommodation with TEC and ACC over property?

In my view America looks a mess with many separate tinpot jurisdictions, most up the candlestick with their own archbishops.

How can Peter Jensen continue as A/B of Sydney if Gafcon is to succeed?

Go to go, doorbell rang.

David Palmer - 30 June 2008 12:58 PM

What did you think of the declaration?

Hi David. Overall I was pleasantly surprised and relieved at the tone and latitude to doctrinal difference provided by the declaration.

One thing I did find interesting in the declaration was the statement in Point 3 to uphold “the three historic Creeds”. This I presume refers to the Nicene, Apostles’ and Athanasian Creeds. It seems that the 39 Articles only mentions 2 creeds, so somehow presumably the Athanasian Creed has acquired full doctrinal orthodoxy at least within conservative Anglicanism. That being the case I can now assume that conservative Anglicans agree that we will be judged according to our deeds.

That’s hardly controversial, is it Angus? That’s what Paul teaches in 2 Cor 5:10, after all. So it wouldn’t be any different from what conservative Anglicans have always believed.

Gordon Cheng - 30 June 2008 02:23 PM

That’s hardly controversial, is it Angus? That’s what Paul teaches in 2 Cor 5:10, after all. So it wouldn’t be any different from what conservative Anglicans have always believed.

Well, I wholeheartedly agree that it’s biblical but I presumed it was controversial given the invective directed towards NT Wright whenever he makes this claim.

Edit: Just a couple of quotes and links (from a very quick Google search) to back up my perception that Wright stating that we will be judged by our works was/is controversial in conservative (Reformed) circles ...

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1243268.htm
So I [ABC Radio interviewer Stephen Crittenden] want to ask you [NT Wright] a question that I hope will have particular resonance for the Sydney Anglicans in our audience. I’ve just been reading the theologian Hans Küng’s autobiography, and it’s fascinating, a great ecumenist saying ‘I basically agree with Luther. In the end, in the great debate about faith and works, I believe we’re justified through faith.’ You on the other hand, as I understand it, say there’s been a conspiracy of silence about St Paul, amongst Protestants, that St Paul’s pretty unambiguous. In Romans 2 , and Romans 14 , and 2 Corinthians 5 , We will be judged on the entirety of our lives, we will be judged on our works.

http://triangularchristianity.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/nt-wright-on-the-new-perspective-on-paul/
Wright believes that there is a judgment according to works as outlined in Romans 2:1-16. This is very controversial, but Wright does not believe it makes him Pelagian

NT Wright is saying a great deal more than that, however. A great, great deal more, in many volumes. His is a revisionist understanding of St Paul. But I think his scathing critique of the evangelicals who believe that Lambeth is past its use-by date does show something of the confusion he’s operating with.

It will be interesting to see where he goes with his response to GAFCON. I’m predicting a fair bit of ‘yes buttery’. Or, he may be a lot angrier than that. Time will tell.

Edit responding to Angus’s edits: I don’t really accept Stephen Crittenden as an authority on what evangelicals believe, nor NT Wright for that matter—so that’s a response to the first quote. And yes, NT Wright’s understanding of Romans 2:1-6 is contentious from an evangelical perspective, as the second quote highlights.

Gordon Cheng - 30 June 2008 12:11 AM

I wrote something about GAFCON for the Daily Tele. You might pray that the person responsible sees fit to post it, and has the time to do that also.

Thanks to those who prayed. The editorial is here.

Well done Gordo.

I too recently wrote a response to the SMH article which was recently published talking about GAFCON. . .and I am posting my response to that article here, just in case the one I sent the SMH never sees the light of day, or the light of the net anyway. . . .so here goes:

Linda Morris completely misses the point of GAFCON and what international conservative Anglicans are trying to produce with regard to a new global, confessional Anglican fellowship. One of the symptoms of liberalism within all denominations has to do with the lack of concern for the inerrancy of the Bible and the comprehensive Lordship of Jesus Christ over every area of our lives as humans. It is not a one issue situation, e.g. a liberal view of homosexuality vs. a traditionalist view of the same issue. It is about how we approach the Bible and how we allow it to shape our worldview and not how we allow a secular worldview shape our view of Holy Scripture. To see it as a petty, provincialism on the part of a group of backward looking theologians is to totally miss the point.

Angus Johnson - 30 June 2008 02:08 PM

David Palmer - 30 June 2008 12:58 PM

What did you think of the declaration?

One thing I did find interesting in the declaration was the statement in Point 3 to uphold “the three historic Creeds”. This I presume refers to the Nicene, Apostles’ and Athanasian Creeds.

Correct.

Angus Johnson - 30 June 2008 02:08 PM

It seems that the 39 Articles only mentions 2 creeds, so somehow presumably the Athanasian Creed has acquired full doctrinal orthodoxy at least within conservative Anglicanism. ...

On the contrary, the original version thereof operant in most of the English-speaking world (including Australia, for what it’s worth) mentions specifically those 3 creeds in Art. VIII
[quote author="Anglican Church League redaction of the 39 Articles"]Article VIII

Of the Three Creeds

The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture.

, while the Americans (from 1801) and their offshoots are peculiar in ommitting the Athanasian Creed from their formulation of said article.

Michael Canaris - 30 June 2008 04:37 PM

while the Americans (from 1801) and their offshoots are peculiar in omitting the Athanasian Creed from their formulation of said article.

Micheal, thanks for your helpful clarification.

Well done from me too Gordo.

Does any one agree with me that GAFCON has not tackled the issue of female ordination. iIhave just read Wayne Grudem’s masterpiece on the subject...he shows how female ordiantion opens the door to liberalism. If female ordination is not orthodox...how can a believer that it is, greet another person as orthodox. I believe orthodox , means right belief.

So you can be orthodox and believe in women presbyters and their headship of a congregation…

Orthodox if you worship Jesus Christ in the hconsecrated oly commmunion elements reserved tabernacle on your altar

Orthodox if you pray for the dead and to the Saints

but unorthodox if you are an active homosexual!

Top post from David Ould on responses to GAFCON. Sure enough, ‘yes buttery’ from Wright. And David’s ‘I told you so’ regarding Williams is fair enough, really.