Welby responds to the primates of Nigeria, Uganda, and Rwanda regarding Lambeth conference

Abp. Welby has written a letter to the primates of Nigeria, Uganda, and Rwanda asking them to reconsider their decision not to attend the Lambeth conference. ACNA has already stated their intention to attend the Kigali conference instead; I wrote there that Lambeth might be issuing invitations as part of a "power play" to elevate the Lambeth conference above the one in Kigali.

It's clear that Welby is anxious that the Lambeth Conference be considered the "official" voice of worldwide Anglicanism. It is equally clear that GAFCON and ACNA do not intend to go along with this, and that Lambeth's obvious embrace of the homosexual agenda is part of the reason why. Welby tries to quash this insurrection by writing in part:

Given Lambeth's utter refusal to enforce this very provision against the America and Canadian Anglican churches, and its own embrace of homosexual practice in the Church of England, this statement is a real eye-roller, and the African bishops are having none of it.

Welby further complains:

African churches are dealing with a murderous Muslim opposition, endemic corruption in their own governments, hunger, disease, and poverty. African bishops being lectured to that they are insufficiently concerned about the environment by an English fellow who is sitting in an air-conditioned office in a wealthy country thousands of miles away is surely the cherry on top of the parfait. This little bit of supercilious tripe positively reeks of condescension.

The power-play of trying to enforce Lambeth norms on GAFCON or its affiliated provinces is going to fail for the simple reason that Lambeth's word no longer carries any moral or doctrinal weight. Anglicans should look to Kigali and not Lambeth as the way forward for the global church.

 

This is pure schismatic rhetoric. There’s nothing Anglican about it.

 

Was it schismatic for the Church of England to leave Rome?

 

There is nothing non-Anglican about it. Let's look at this from a canonical perspective: the only way this would be non-Anglican is if the Archbishop of Canterbury held jurisdiction over the Primates, and they then denied it. That's the definition of schism: violation of jurisdiction. However he doesn't have any jurisdiction claims over them, unlike the Bishop of Rome, who claims universal jurisdiction, and therefore any bishop's denial of him is ipso-facto schism. But in our understanding, the Primates are sui juris, and Canterbury is merely first among equals. He doesn't have any more authority, and he certainly can't usurp their jurisidiction. His position is that of honor, and they can withdraw it and bestow it somewhere else.

 

As I understand it, Welby's CofE doesn't even consider some of those good Anglican folks a part of the Anglican Communion! One cannot very well hold out the right hand of welcome while booting them with the left foot.

 

The English Reformation was schismatic only if one makes modern Roman Catholic assumptions about what constitutes unity in the Church (more on that below). There was one hierarchy in England prior to the Reformation, and one hierarchy in England after the Reformation, until Rome under Piux IX established a separate one beginning in 1850 with Universalis Ecclesiae.

This is casuistry. The essence of schism is division, first and foremost:

Oxford English Dictionary
1. A split or division between strongly opposed sections or parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief.

‘the widening schism between Church leaders and politicians’

1.1 The formal separation of a Church into two Churches or the secession of a group owing to doctrinal and other differences.
See also Great Schism

‘The centralization of the Catholic Church following the schisms of the 14th century changed how builders and patrons approached the construction and layout of churches, monasteries, and chapels.’

Merriam-Webster
2a. formal division in or separation from a church or religious body
2b. the offense of promoting schism

Catholic Encyclopedia (1912)
Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act. In this etymological and full meaning the term occurs in the books of the New Testament. By this name St. Paul characterizes and condemns the parties formed in the community of Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:12): "I beseech you, brethren", he writes, ". . . that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment" (ibid., i, 10). The union of the faithful, he says elsewhere, should manifest itself in mutual understanding and convergent action similar to the harmonious co-operation of our members which God hath tempered "that there might be no schism in the body" (1 Corinthians 12:25).
​

The original notion even persists in the modern Roman Catholic Church:

Code of Canon Law
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
​

No one is making the absurd claim that Archbishop Welby has some sort of universal jurisdiction to violate. That's a Straw Man.

Some here have openly and approvingly expressed the expectation that the ACNA will attempt to use GAFCON to promote a spirit of division, which they hope will result in two competing 'Anglican' communions where previously there was just one. This would necessitate the splitting of Churches not only at the national, but all the way down to the diocesan and possibly even the congregational level. Some ACNA members on this very Forum have openly expressed the wish that this would soon be case in Australia. The OP of this thread strongly implied a similar wish for Africa. The hostile actions of the ACNA toward the Episcopal Church have been well publicized, despite the ACNA's relative numerical insignificance. These attitudes and actions are the very essence of schism, and are a very serious matter. We are not talking about some obscure technicality of legal minutiae. We are talking about matters of the heart that warranted stern exhortation by St. Paul himself. Far from being a secondary concern, fomenting schism is in fact a very grave sin.

An attitude of glib disregard for the unity of the Church is also extremely un-Anglican and un-catholic. The Eastern Orthodox today consider it an impossibility to have another Ecumenical Council without Rome's participation. It would never occur to them to simply try to create an alternative See in Rome in order to facilitate the convocation of such a gathering. The Lutherans valued episcopal succession very highly, and only out of necessity in an emergency situation created congregational pastors to carry on the work of preaching the Word and administering the Sacraments; they did not try to create their own separate episcopal hierarchies de novo. As Melanchthon put it:

Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Art. XIV
The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. 25 But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved.
​

The Church of England was intended to be one Church for all the Christians subject to the Monarch, as the Prayer Book's very title, and the history of the drafting and promulgation of the Articles of Religion, make abundantly clear. How is it that pre-VC2 Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Lutheran Reformers, and the classical Anglican divines, all clearly understood what some of the ACNA members here seem to have missed completely? For all the talk about 'tradition' and being truly 'catholic', the endeavor is worthless if unity is tossed aside as something nonessential. Unity and catholicity are inseparable in the sense that each necessitates the other. It is not possible to be ecumenical and exclusionary at the same time. Anglicanism has always sought the former at the expense of the latter, not the other way around.

Which African bishops does Archbishop Welby not "consider to be part of the Anglican Communion"?

I want to be clear that I am not condemning all members of the ACNA here, or saying that membership in the ACNA automatically makes one a schismatic. I have no doubt that there are plenty of good people in the ACNA and I wish them well. In some areas an ACNA parish may be the only one around. I understand that. What is tiresome, however, is the fact that this an ostensibly Anglican Forum, and yet attitudes and movements that would split Anglican Churches are openly cheered by ACNA members, despite the clear verdict of history that the cultivation of schism is the path to disintegration and ultimate dissolution.

 

The ACC will not/did not take part in the Lambeth Conference. I suspect the reason being the same as the African jurisdictions. I have not queried Archbishop Haverland on this matter yet. I hope to get his take on things soon.

 

What of the early church? In the early centuries, the overwhelming majority of those who professed Christ were Arians. Those who recognized error withdrew themselves from the Arians and taught others the truth, as was their duty to Christ and conscience. One did not see the two groups worshiping together. Schism existed. But who was in schism: the disciples who taught the truth, or the Arians who taught heresy? Couldn't one argue that the Arians were in schism because they broke against the truth of God's word and divine, trinitarian nature? Or are we so bold as to suggest that the trinitarians were wrong to separate themselves from the numerically superior Arian worshipers of God?

When the Roman church adopted unscriptural teachings that tended to lead laity astray spiritually and to endanger their eternal souls, it was the duty of the Reformers to attempt to bring the organization's teachings back in line with the truth, and this they did. But they were rebuffed and could not change the Roman church. For conscience' sake they could not remain (and some were tossed out of that church, Luther being one such) and were compelled to serve their fellow human beings by ministering in spirit and truth. One could argue that the Roman church fell into schism against Christ and against the invisible Church, the actual Body of Christ.

History repeats. The churches of the Anglican Communion are following a similar path to the Roman church by leading laity astray in matters of morals. When any church falls into schism against Christ and His Body on earth, and when they refuse to listen to wiser voices and reasons from Scripture, it is the duty of the faithful to shake the dust off their feet and leave. "Come out from her," we are counseled, for we cannot in good conscience partake of her iniquities.

The CofE, TEC, and their compatriots would be, I suspect, welcome at Kigali. For if they went to Kigali, it would mean that they are open to hearing the truth and mending their ways.

 

With all respect for Invictus, I don't like schism, but if you give me the option of a church that is ok with gay marriage, is middle of the road on abortion, has woman bishops, and other unbiblical teachings you can't stay in that church. You have to leave in my opinion. It is not like you had the ability to just say no to gay marriage. If you did that you were chased down and punished just like Bishop Love way. As for unity the ACNA is seeking unity, with all other traditional Anglicans in the world. We are in communion with around 70 million of the worlds 80 million Anglicans.

 

With respect, you are making the assumption that these things should be church-dividing issues in the first place. That assumption is the beginning of all schismatic tendencies. None of these opinions (on either side) are “heresies” - doctrines that contravene defined dogma - so there’s no real basis for breaking communion (or violating jurisdiction) over it. The Fathers in the 4th century did not leave and start their own church when the official Church was dominated by Arians for decades on end. And the issues they were debating at the time were of far greater importance and theological significance than the differences that divide us today. Anglicans aren’t - or at least haven’t historically been - congregationalists at heart or biblical fundamentalists that eschew tradition and reason.

 

No surprise there. Five decades after the schism that began with the St. Louis congress, the ACC is basically just an idiosyncratic instance of “Old Catholicism with English characteristics”. The result of eschewing Anglicanism as it exists today is that it no longer resembles historic Anglicanism either. It’s membership is less than 50,000 worldwide and it is now for all practical purposes an alternative to, rather than an example of, the spirit of Anglican practice. The same thing will happen to the ACNA for the same reasons. That’s what schism does.

That’s not to say the ACC is bad or not comprised of good people. I have read Continuing publications for years and found them to be full of great insight. But I have also come across plenty of criticism of the Prayer Book and classical Anglicanism, that is far outside the norm of what one should expect to encounter within a church that calls itself “Anglican”. One either loves the tradition one claims to be a part of, or one doesn’t. Trying to have it both ways doesn’t work.

 

I have no love for tradition. It serves a purpose, but I don't love it. I love God and I try (in obedience) to love all my "neighbors." Tradition is not worthy of love IMO. If it were, all Anglicans would be in error for failing to love and adhere to RC Tradition (which they do capitalize, they love it so much).

 

heresy
(ˈhɛrəsɪ)
n, pl -sies
1. (Theology)
a. an opinion or doctrine contrary to the orthodox tenets of a religious body or church
b. the act of maintaining such an opinion or doctrine
2. any opinion or belief that is or is thought to be contrary to official or established theory
3. belief in or adherence to unorthodox opinion

It seems to me that modern CofE & TEC teaching on the subject of homosexual relations meets the definition of heresy.

Teadhing people to self-justify their sins as "not sinful" and to not repent, having seared their consciences against the counsel of the Holy Spirit, is highly detrimental to their spiritual condition, intimacy with God, and eternal future. Scripture is too clear, and the church has always known this (until recently, it seems).

At least the Arians had some reasoning from scripture to think (wrongly) that Jesus is not Almighty God. The church leaders who think homosexual activity can be wholesome and right in God's eyes have no such excuse.

 

No they just eventually kicked the Arians out and all the while supported and went to faithful churches that taught the truth. For a long time in the West you had dueling leadership. The Germanic people would be Arians and the conquered people would be Catholic. They was schism and impaired communion. The Bishop of Rome supported Anathasius and the monks gave him hiding at times. So in affect what the ACNA did. They moved to oversight of orthodox bishops while they formed together. They might not be heresy as you define them but they are unbiblical and against scriptural teachings and tradition so they are outside of the true faith.

 

Yes I have long thought that many people in the Continuum are basically old Catholics in Anglican guise.

 

The issue of homosexuality is most assuredly a salvific issue. Prohibitions against homosexual behavior exist in the moral law of the OT (and remains in force) and is re-iterated multiple times in the new testament. Homosexual behavior is sinful; affirmation of that behavior is sinful. Those who persist in sin will not see the kingdom of Heaven. A church that advocates for this sort of sin tears at the fabric of the Christian faith.

See Rom. 1:25-32:

Emphasis mine. This teaching is bedrock Christian doctrine, not adiaphora. To deny this is to deny the authority of the Bible itself as the Very Word of God. Which really is the argument we're having -- the problem is that liberals simply disregard inconvenient parts of the Bible as old-fashioned relics of a patriarchal era that have no applicability to the modern world. But to deny part of the Bible is to deny it entirely, because Biblical authority stands or falls on the authority of the whole Word.

God loves homosexual people, and like all other sinners, they are called to repent of their sin, be washed, and live in Christ. People who have died to sin cannot continue to live in it.

1 Cor. 6:9-11:

 

I note that you cite secular sources, and even RC sources as if it were somehow relevant. The RCs have a broken understanding of ecclesiology, irredeemably corrupted by the Papacy in the middle of it. I don’t blame you for unwittingly importing those concepts into understanding Anglicanism, given the relative loss of access to our best historical thought on this point, and the abundance of pop RC “thought” on this topic. But just please recognize they you’re not following the Anglican understanding at all. At no point have you cited even one Anglican source to bolster your points.

No, it is incorrect to say that division is by and large equivalent to schism; except in the loose popular sense. Canonically it has never been seen as that.

You’re confusing schism with a lack of communion. The two are not equivalent (except, again, in the popular loose sense). If it happens that, say, Nigeria has a rupture with Canterbury at some point in the future, then it would be accurate to say that they are not in communion, not that Nigeria has “schismed from” Canterbury. Canterbury doesn’t have any kind of primary claim, some sort of a superseding jurisdiction, etc. They are literally equivalent in power. Canterbury’s sole point of extra authority is its history, and the great honor associated with that. But this criterion is completely irrelevant in the law. In the law the concepts are precise and not emotion or value-laden. Schism is specifically a violation of jurisdiction. Like if a priest under a bishop began to operate without submission to the said bishop. Or if bishop A began to ordain people or plant churches in the jurisdiction of bishop B. Schism in the church is always a sin. But if Bishops A and B merely divided from one another, then they would merely be not in communion (which is not a sin), rather than in schism (which is a sin).

 

There is no confusion on my part, and I stand by my original post. Words either mean what they mean or they don’t.

The Greek word from which we derive the English term “schism” means “division”, and this is obviously the meaning St. Paul had in mind in the 1 Cor. passage quoted in the old Catholic Encyclopedia article. That in turn is the scriptural basis for the subsequent historical development of canon law on the subject, and whatever binding authority it may have within the Church today.

The Scriptures say nothing of “jurisdiction”, but have plenty to say about divisiveness. And they call the latter “schism”, as the Church of England’s current canons recognize:

A 8 Of schisms
Forasmuch as the Church of Christ has for a long time past been distressed by separations and schisms among Christian men, so that the unity for which our Lord prayed is impaired and the witness to his gospel is grievously hindered, it is the duty of clergy and people to do their utmost not only to avoid occasions of strife but also to seek in penitence and brotherly charity to heal such divisions.
​

That being said, violation of jurisdiction is certainly one particular manifestation of schism, and is in fact precisely what the ACNA has done with respect to the Episcopal Church, viz., establishing diocesan structures where they already existed, and it is what some of its members here openly hope will happen in other Anglican jurisdictions (Africa, Australia, etc.). But there must be division in the first place as a condition for such violations of jurisdiction to occur.

​

 

Which is exactly what happened when TEC and ACC broke with the Anglican Communion in ordaining practicing homosexuals to the clergy, performing homosexual "marriages", and even in ordaining women to the clergy. By failing to enforce canon law against the wayward provinces, Canterbury gave tacit (and in fact explicit) assent to these actions, thus themselves violating their own canons. GAFCON/ACNA only left because Canterbury not only refused to enforce church discipline, but actively abetted those guilty of breaking the peace.

The Rev. J. I. Packer lays it out in detail here. Canterbury, TEC, and ACC can heal the breach at any time by repenting of their errors, returning to orthodox doctrine and submitting to Biblical authority.

 

So you take Scriptures at face value now? I’m confused by when you allow yourself to become a fundamentalist, vs. when it’s only for people like myself with those icky stone-age views of ours.

To answer your point, you’d be surprised to hear this from a a bronze-age caveman like me, but I don’t generally just open the Bible and interpret everything by what it seems to mean to my eyes. So I’m not that kind of fundamentalist I guess. I’m an Anglican. I interpret it through the combined wisdom of how something has been understood, and not just leave it to me and my feeble brain. In the wisdom of the Church, the word for “division” is indeed understood as bad. But it is balanced by a contrary injunction from St Paul: to never allow anyone with willful sin to peaceably exist in the Church. To such people, we are constantly told to confront them, gravely warn them, aggressively admonish them, and finally to sever all bonds of fellowship with them. The wisdom of the Church never teaches us to submit to the spiritual authority of those who are evil, heathen, or heretics, which 99-100% of Episcopalian bishops are.

There are several answers to that. One: if you follow the progress of ACNA’s formation, it was led by the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, and others. These bishops and dioceses had the full divine right of their own jurisdiction, merely withdrawing from communion with the Episcopal Church, and forming a new body of communion as within their divine right of jurisdiction. These weren’t some vagrant priests going against their bishops. The ACNA formation was always and ever led by bishops.

The second answer is even less nice, but we’re being blunt here so why not. At this point I'm not convinced that any TEC bishops have any jurisdiction left at all. They all, without one exception, have at least aided and abetted manifest heresy without resisting it; those who have resisted it have been tried and kicked out. Those who are left have all abetted it, by definition. In addition, almost all of them have also actively practiced it. One who abets and commits heresy isn’t a Christian in the first place, and one who isn’t a Christian can hardly be a bishop with valid jurisdiction over Christians. So charitably speaking the TEC is currently led by heathen laymen. There are no actual Christian bishops left among them. There is no jurisdiction to violate.