GAFCON

Discussion in 'Questions?' started by Jeffg, Jun 25, 2019.

  1. Jeffg

    Jeffg Active Member

    Posts:
    132
    Likes Received:
    90
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Lutherpalian
    So, there is GAFCON, a group of disenfranchised Anglicans unhappy with the way the Anglican world is going. It would appear to me that the Anglican Communion, under the lead of the Archbishop of Canterbury, has done nothing to lead the Communion back to its roots. Why not just use GAFCON as a way to create a new leadership position, and move away from Canterbury and those church's which continue their leftist/non-biblical/heretical moves. ?
     
    Liturgyworks and Brigid like this.
  2. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Whilst I can see what you are suggesting, I would suggest that that is a fairly disingenuous description of the GAFCON membership. I would also suggest that there has been some efforts made between the Communion and GAFCON, though there has been little real progress made. One of the issues is that the Communion is made up of 46 autocephalous member churches. https://www.anglicancommunion.org/structures/member-churches.aspx

    This is more like an orthodox structure than the monolithic structure under the Patriarch of the West. The RCC sees the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, the holder of the Keys, and the successor to Peter, and indeed define Catholicism as being in Communion with the Pope. This means that the central office can make determination on matters of faith and practice in a way that no office in the Anglican Communion can, because each church is self governing.

    It has never been the purpose of GAFCON to start a new Church, but rather to highlight and flag for all Anglicans the Church's role in 'guarding and proclaiming the unchanging truth in a changing world'. There is no doubt that each of the member churches is called to live out the gospel in it's own circumstances, and some room for that can be seen within the thirty nine articles.

    We we once understood being Anglican as being in communion with Canterbury. I don't think we see it that way any more, and there is no doubt that in the contemporary situation you would have to acknowledge that we have some impaired communion. One way to resolve it would be for the ABofC to act like a Pope and throw people the option to conform or leave. Such an approach is seemingly counter the Anglican way, and not likely to be especially palatable anywhere, and certainly not with TEC.

    Alternatively we struggle on to find a way through this mess, hopefully remembering that a self focussed church is not a mission church.

    Sadly, and it does make me sad, I suspect that what you suggest may well be where we end up. However I don't see that as the absolute resolution of the issue, because I suspect that a GAFCON style Church would still be a federation of Churches each beng self governing. And then there will be a new day and a new challenge. I don't see any of these problems being sorted out in some sort of adversarial scenario. We need to find a yet more excellent way.
     
    Shaun, Fr. Brench and Liturgyworks like this.
  3. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    724
    Likes Received:
    718
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian
    Yes, the situation regarding the Anglican Communion does remind one of the situation in Orthodoxy. The difference is that the Orthodox are united theologically, whereas the Anglican churches are not. If, for instance, the Church of Serbia were to accept Gay marriage tomorrow, there would not be "impaired communion" with the other Orthodox churches; there would be no communion.
     
    Liturgyworks likes this.
  4. Jeffg

    Jeffg Active Member

    Posts:
    132
    Likes Received:
    90
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Lutherpalian
    Thats a reason I wonder if the Anglican Communion is even a viable institution, and those who are per say Orthodox Anglicans don't form another Communion. Lutherans disagree with each other i.e. ELCA, LCMS, WELC, etc and these churchs are NOT in communion with each other over many of the same issues that are splintering Anglicanism today. Whatever ones opinion on any issue, women ordination, gay marraige,etc... why would you be in Communion with a group that you strongly feel is practicing something that is per say unBiblical... ??? Makes about as much sense as Bernie Sanders joining the Republican Party and being best friends with Ted Cruise and Rand Paul.
     
    Liturgyworks and Peteprint like this.
  5. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I see our model as an advantage, for the following reason:

    1. The lutheran example of LCMS - WELC is a case study of what not to do; both are traditional and orthodox, but a few minor disagreements erupt in the tear of the whole communion. That kind of splintering and schism is wholly unworthy of our Lord’s high priestly prayer that we may all be One.

    2. Most other denominations have a high view of their capacity to make deductions in theology. Romans, Lutherans, they’re similar in their confidence about what conclusions they can draw solely through their reasoning. Their view of their own reason is too high, in church matters, and it leads to schism (see point 1).

    By contrast Anglicans have a humbler view of what you personally (without a church council), can go to war for, or be confident enough of to die on a hill for. You aren’t dying on a hill or schisming and tearing the church apart, for minor matters; even if they seem *totally certain* to you. You die on a hill over grand matters, and leave the other matters to fraternal correction, pressure, church councils, etc. Once the Church as a whole makes a conclusion, that adds to what items you can die on a hill for.

    3. Schism is not a primary way of resolving church disputes, and it cannot be allowed to become so. The normal way, for most of church history, is through church synods and councils. GAFCON 2008 was one of such intra-Anglican church councils. There can be, and should be others.

    To sum up, allowing yourself to be permitted just to flake off if you have a disagreement with someone does these things wrongly:
    • creates a broken and fractured body of Christ which utterly violates the early church and our Lord’s high priestly prayer.
    • elevates your pride and reason above its statute.
    • seemingly makes obsolete the need for any church councils in which the one subjects himself to the whole.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2019
    Shaun and Liturgyworks like this.
  6. Liturgyworks

    Liturgyworks Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    760
    Likes Received:
    442
    Country:
    US
    Religion:
    Christian Orthodoxy
    Indeed so, and furthermore, the idea of the Church of Serbia willingly performing a gay marriage is so fantastically improbable as to be almost hysterically funny.

    :rofl:
     
    Brigid and Shaun like this.
  7. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    I looked at that list and didn't see ACNA (Anglican Church in North America) listed under USA. What is the significance of that?
     
  8. Shane R

    Shane R Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,138
    Likes Received:
    1,181
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican
    ACNA has never been recognized by Canterbury or the Anglican Consultative Council, despite the best efforts of +Robert Duncan. I don't know if they've ever even applied for membership. But, they often try to claim affiliation with the Anglican Communion because they are recognized by Uganda, Nigeria, Rwanda, etc. via participation in GAFCON. To me it is rather disingenuous and a backdoor approach to respectability. My Anglican jurisdiction is recognized by Tanzania but we don't use that link to claim that we are a member of the Anglican Communion.

    It's already here. The new challenge is to what degree Pentecostalism, specifically the 'word of faith' variation, will be tolerated.
     
    Liturgyworks likes this.
  9. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    ACNA is not in Communion with Canterbury.
    The list of Anglican Churches not in Communion with Canterbury can be found here.

    http://anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html

    Is this a new updated variation of Prosperity Gospel, where we ignore the clear biblical indications of God's bias towards to poor?
     
    Liturgyworks likes this.
  10. Shane R

    Shane R Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,138
    Likes Received:
    1,181
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican
    You've got the basic idea. You can boss God around and 'name and claim' your blessing if you believe with all your heart.
     
    Brigid and Liturgyworks like this.
  11. Jeffg

    Jeffg Active Member

    Posts:
    132
    Likes Received:
    90
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Lutherpalian
     
  12. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Good question. It may in part be because they are not in communion with TEC. I think the decision in the main rests with ACNA.
     
  13. Jeffg

    Jeffg Active Member

    Posts:
    132
    Likes Received:
    90
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Lutherpalian
    Weird that the TEC can be in Communion with a Lutheran body (The ELCA) and not ACNA
     
  14. Magistos

    Magistos Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    179
    Likes Received:
    138
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    My understanding is this (and I'm writing from work, so distracted, and in no way comprehensive) -

    TEC and ACNA have bad blood. ACNA is a breakaway (originally) of TEC that has since grown, unlike the continuing Anglicans.
    ACNA less bad blood, with all the new people who don't know or feel the history, but the "old" ACNA members - who are former TEC members and TEC have a lot of hurt feelings. Day to day, they don't think about each other, but get online and hoo-boy. Like anything else online, of course.
    There are lawsuits going on over property.
    There is the previously unheard of thing of having overlapping provinces.
    There are accusations that Canterbury needs TEC's money and support over ACNA.
    ACNA has to petition for recognizance from Canterbury, and - my understanding, poor as it is - is that Canterbury won't - for whatever reason. (See previous rumor/gossip about TEC money and resources.) I could be wrong, and probably am.
    ACNA has therefore, in the meantime, established communion/recognizance from the other provinces, and that - from their own releases (and GAFCON's) this puts them in communion with roughly 80% of the global Anglicans.
     
    Liturgyworks likes this.
  15. Jeffg

    Jeffg Active Member

    Posts:
    132
    Likes Received:
    90
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Lutherpalian
    Just as a follow up commentary: I find it interesting and weird that two Churchs of differant Denominations can be in Communion with each other, and yet not with Church's of the same historical back ground. Seems to common in Lutheran and Anglican communities. Sad in a lot of ways... and considering that we are or should be one with each other..
     
    Liturgyworks and Botolph like this.
  16. Shane R

    Shane R Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,138
    Likes Received:
    1,181
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The Continuing churches grew for the first 15 years or so. It was in the early 90s when we sunk into a malaise or holding pattern. ACNA is quickly approaching that benchmark and I am curious to see if the pattern will continue. There's already a chink in the armor with the CANA thing. And there's a steady stream of clergy that are coming and going between the continuing churches and ACNA.

    As for the Lutheran connection; it's old news. Research the Porvoo Communion. Lutherans and old Catholics often find allies in Anglican bodies. My own jurisdiction is in full communion with the Old Catholic Church of Slovakia and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Augsburg Confession (an Eastern European entity). ACNA has a full communion agreement with NALC.
     
    Liturgyworks likes this.
  17. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Thank you, Shane, for that explanation.
     
    Liturgyworks and Shane R like this.
  18. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The argument ACNA makes is not merely a recognition by some singular Province across the seas. That obviously would never be enough. The argument is that the majority of the Anglican world recognizes ACNA. That's what Gafcon is -- the majority of Anglicanism worldwide.

    I do want to add a point about your jurisdiction and the recognition by Tanzania. The problem there is more than simply needing a recognition by multiple Provinces. Even one Province is a great start, and you guys should have built on that. But you won't. Your primates don't want any external Anglican recognition. You just don't have Bishop Hewett, or Haverland, traveling to Nigeria, or to Singapore. They simply don't really care about any other Anglicans anywhere in the world. You throw off words like evangelical, reformational, and these prelates disappear faster than you can say 'prejudicial snobbery'. They MUCH prefer the Polish National Catholic Church, and other such like non-Anglican church bodies.

    That's the main issue on your end -- you guys (writ large) don't actually want to play in the same sandbox as other Anglicans, you don't seek communion with other Anglicans, the Anglican tradition is not a bedrock which you will defend to world's end. I see a future where Anglicanism is simply a part of your traditional past, when you guys evolve into some sort of Episcopalian National Christians, if indeed it won't dissolve into history like the Nestorian churches did, when they had their apogee, and now their nadir. The Anglicanism the Continuing churches have seems to be mainly de facto and by inertia, sad to say.

    Your province has an Anglican past, and maybe even an Anglican present, but I don't see how it would have an Anglican future -- your own primates don't wish to retain it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2019
  19. Shane R

    Shane R Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,138
    Likes Received:
    1,181
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican
    You are speaking out of your zone. Abp. Gordon goes to Africa almost every Autumn. He has his fingers on the pulse of what is going on in Africa. He is actively ensuring our churches do not go into Pentecostalism. Sure, maybe the ACC and some of the other jurisdictions don't really care about their African affiliates -and I've seen that with a particular bishop who claims to be in whichever jurisdiction is currently sending him a check- but some folks take the global communion seriously.

    I somewhat get your point. We are so splintered that half of the bishops are jokers. But there is real Gospel work going on in our sphere now. Maybe that wasn't true ten of fifteen years ago, but the times are changing.
     
    Dave Kemp, Brigid and Liturgyworks like this.
  20. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    I have spent time sitting under Word of Faith teaching in one of the leading churches of that group, so I can probably speak to this better than anyone else on the forum. There is no "ignoring" the poor by WoF people and giving receives a high priority in their message, but they emphasize the value of coupling evangelization with that giving. In other words, if you're going to give to a poor person, at the same time let him know Jesus loves him and wants him to trust in Him.

    "Name it and claim it" is specifically (and vociferously) disavowed by all the WoF people I know (because, they say, it's obvious one can't claim anything that's not in God's will for you to have), yet despite this disavowal they really go too far in this type of thinking. They presume that Jesus' promise in Mark 11:23-24 is unconditioned by any other scriptures. They also presume that we can know God's specific will concerning just about any circumstance by extrapolating from what is known of God's general will. This is a big error. It is true that (as they say) "faith begins where the will of God is known," but our God knows so much more than us as to be beyond comparison and we can't possibly know for certain if it's God's will for a particular crippled person to be made uncrippled on the day you (or he) prayed for healing. WoF presumes it proper to say, "I was healed when we prayed in faith for my healing, and although I still look and feel sick, it's a done deal and I only need to keep believing until I see the full physical manifestation of what must necessarily have already have take place in the spirit realm." It amounts to 'putting God in a box' and saying, "Because I believe and say God is providing for this need, and because God promised we would have whatever we say in faith, God has no choice but to get it to me." And if you never get whatever it was, either you didn't have enough faith or you had unconfessed sin in your life. This concept makes no allowance for the simple facts that we don't know all that God knows, we can't know if it is really in our best interest or the best interest of all affected people, and we should never be so presumptuous and demanding toward God. Nor should we forget our own fleshly tendency to "ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts."

    A healthier, more Biblical way to pray would be, "Lord, I ask you to meet this need. Thank you! I know you hear me and you love me, so I know you'll do what's best for me within the confines of your overarching plans and purposes. I trust you, Lord, no matter what." And we can be confident that God will meet that need at the right time and in the right way if it won't mess something else up. Jesus did teach us to pray, "Give us this day our daily bread," so it is His will for us to ask God to meet our needs. But WoF encourages its adherents, sometimes indirectly, to 'go overboard' and not just ask with faithful expectation but to treat God sort of like a vending machine.

    One other big, obvious difference with WoF is that they teach quite a bit on the truth that God has extended His very own perfect righteousness to us, His children (Romans 10:4,10; 2 Cor. 5:21) as a part of the gift of grace we received by faith. Unfortunately if this message is not balanced with adequate teaching on the importance of not letting one's justification be a license to sin, the hearer can easily stray into the error of thinking, "It doesn't matter what I do, it's washed away by Jesus, so I can do whatever I want." There are some people (maybe not all of them are WoF, either) who get into this ditch. But I never saw that as a prevalent thought among WoF, and in the church I attended there certainly was plenty of counterbalance in the sermons. I also think it appropriate to point out that most every road has not just one ditch, but two (one on each side). In this case, the other ditch is where people have so much sin-consciousness (and practically no righteousness-consciousness) they constantly think themselves unworthy, filthy servants. When one thinks this way, one easily could feel too unworthy to have any real faith that God would deign to meet one's needs or entertain one's prayers. God does not want us to go through life feeling like filthy worms. We are the 'prodigal sons' of whom He says, let's get out the nice robe and the family ring, cook up the best vittles, and celebrate this beloved child who has come home!
     
    Brigid, Shaun and Shane R like this.