My take on this is that Anglicanism is going take on a decidedly evangelical/charismatic cast as it develops in the Global South. World Christianity, like it or not. is far more charismatic/Pentecostal than many westerners are comfortable with. Even Roman Catholics in the Global South have a very charismatic approach to worship. Neo-puritan that I am, I'm not overly fond of this style of worship, but I cannot deny its ascendance. The friction between Evangelical Anglicans and the Anglo-Catholics never really went away, but the particularly Tractarian strain of Anglo-Catholocism never reached much beyond the borders of the Anglosphere anyway. If Ango-Catholics can be brought on-board with the confessional nature of the new Communion, I think they can continue their congregations in peacable fashion for the forseeable future. I can see disputes bubbling up over the nature of the Eucharist or Marian devotions, but we needn't go looking for trouble there...it will rear its head soon enough without us seeking it out. The issue of WO in the provinces is another sticking point for many (as you know, I oppose it myself for the priesthood and bishopate, though I'm in favor of WO into the diaconate as I believe it has biblical warrant). In a Global Anglican context, though, I doubt it's going to be particularly contentious in the short to medium term. At any rate, GAFCON and the GSFA aren't stupid enough (I pray) to immediately start another war before the last one is properly complete. If I can make (uneasy) peace with WO, anyone can. @Invictus and I disagree on the scope of Article XXVI of the 39 Articles, but it most assuredly does apply in the context of WO. I don't like it, but as long as the true Gospel is being taught and the sacraments being faithfully ministered, I will learn to live with it -- and so will most other conservatives, I think. I do hope the new Communion will come together in a council and decide the matter formally, one way or the other, once the dust settles: as a conciliar church, we should have done this long ago. As to being a creedal rather than a confessional church -- eh. The Apostles, Athanasian, and Nicene Creeds take the historic affirm/deny formula of most longer confessions, so I don't really draw a line between the two. Confessions tend to do more systematic theology than simpler creeds do, but ultimately they're doing the same thing. The words are basically synonyms as far as I'm concerned. I'm perfectly happy using the 39 Articles, the Ordinal, the Jerusalem Declaration, and the Prayer Book as our foundation (for so they are, and always were, except the Jerusalem Declaration). At the minimum, it allows us to actually answer the question, "What is an Anglican?" This is no small thing.
I read the Tome of Leo today. Pope Leo I’s clarity and forthrightness is so impressive in the face of serious heresy. I pray that our Anglican leaders at GAFCON can have the same clarity and candor exemplified by Leo I, in comparison to the cowardly leadership of Justin Welby.
I have also spoken to Fr. Damien Trudeau about the goings-on of all things Anglican in South Africa, specifically, and all of Africa, in general. He was the founding pastor of two parishes in South Africa, Prior of Stilfontein Priory and appointed Vicar General of the Missionary Diocese of the West in 2020 by Archbishop/Metropolitan Mark Haverland of the Anglican Catholic Church. He said he has mixed emotions about the status of Anglicanism in Africa. He said while many wish to hold true to the 39 Articles of Faith, some practiced as if their dioceses were a fiefdom, complete with ruling wives. He did not see, in the immediate future, a whole lot of change to conform to strictly traditional, conservative Anglicanism. He spoke of conflict between those in Africa that wished to remove from the influence of Canterbury, those that wish to coexist and those that wish to conform to strict Anglicanism, along with those that wished to retain their own category of Anglicanism and local authority, tribal, if you will.
It's interesting to note that almost exactly this same situation pertained in England and Europe in the years leading up to the English Reformation (with the exception of tribal African customs, of course). Bishops ran their own dioceses pretty much as they saw fit, with little oversight. Doctrine and practice varied widely from diocese to diocese and even parish to parish. Given that so many priests at the time did not have any knowledge of the Bible (not reading Latin or not being able to read period) they depended on habit and ritual to guide the service, and operated more at the whims of their bishops and patrons than from Scripture. This is one of the reasons the European Reformation came about in the first place: to re-ground church doctrine and practice in the Bible rather than (degraded and often heretical) custom and precendent. African Christianity is beset by lots of problems, no doubt, just as it is in Asia and South America. Corruption is always a sore spot (as it is in the West also if we are honest with ourselves). The danger of syncretism with native African forms of animism and pagan worship are an ever-pressing concern. (Nigerian Vodoun or Voodoo being a good example of this, or Rastafarianism in the Caribbean.) But with all these troubles, I see in many African Anglican Bishops a zeal for God's word, and a resolve to lead their churches in a Godly and Bible-centric way. They understand the difficulties facing the church in Africa (far better than we in the West do), but they also understand that most African Christians have a zeal and joy and hunger for their faith that their Western counterparts often fail to exhibit. Will Global Anglicanism look like good old English Anglicanism? In doctrine and theology, absolutely. In Church practice? It will vary. Some congregations will model the sober, respectful, orderly Anglicanism of the Anglosphere. Many will be more charismatic/pentecostal than Western traditionalists are comfortable with. The African church has many faces, and every church congregation will reflect the local culture to a greater or lesser degree. There will be alarming cases of heterodoxy and even heresy, but in this matter we in the West are hardly in a position to chide them for a problem we are in the middle of suffering from ourselves. What the Global South brings to the Anglican faith is vitality and life. Anglicanism has been on the wane in the Anglosphere for a long time. The orthodox in England, America, Canada, and Australia will keep the flame burning in the West, but it is in Africa that the faith will grow and thrive.
This quote gladdened my heart: Amen, hallelujah! I've long said that these "cultural warfare" issues often simply hide a deeper problem in the western church, which is a loss of confidence in the authority of Scripture. Too many Christians in the west treat the Bible as a book about God written by men, when the Bible is book written by God to men. Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos). It is the revealed Truth of Creation given to men by the Creator Himself. We did not seek out God; he found us and called us by name (Isa. 43:1). If Anglicans can solve this problem, the rest of our problems will take care of themselves.
Further thoughts on the GAFCON IV conference statement. Justin Welby is now a non-entity as far as Global Anglicans are concerned (now de jure; this has been a de facto reality for some time). The CofE is officially out of Communion with 80% of the world's Anglicans. No formal melding of GAFCON and GSFA. Probably for the best; they really are two different things, and keeping separate avoids turf battles we don't need right now. Global Anglicanism (GAFCON+GSFA) will be a doctrinally-defined church based on the founding Anglican formularies: the 39 Articles, the Oridinal, the Prayer Book, and the historic creeds and confessions (Apostles Creed, Athanasian Creed, Nicene Creed, and the Jerusalem Statement of 2008). Anglicanism will no longer be defined by relationship to the See of Canterbury or by the Archibshop of Canterbury. A focus for the next decade will be on growth and discipleship (church planting, youth ministry, etc.). So, no surprises. This conference was really just a way of formalizing all the discussion that's already been happening over the past decade since GAFCON emerged in 2008. If the Jerusalem Statement of 2008 was the birth notice, GAFCON IV is the confirmation ceremony. My priest and bishop are both in Kigali this week, so I'm very much looking forward to their reports when they get back home. Praise God for his mercy and love, and for giving the GAFCON IV attendees discernment and wisdom. May God guide us and our church through the turbulent times ahead. In the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, amen.
Why meh? They just removed Canterbury from the Instruments of Communion, and instead put the Jerusalem Declaration as an instrument of Communion in its stead… seems pretty earth shattering
The Most Rev. Laurent Mbanda of Rwanda has been selected as the next chairman of GAFCON. May God give him wisdom and patience in the years ahead, and may God also grant him and his wife Chantal peace in the wake of their son's recent passing. Oh, it is. It is seismic. I don't think the wider Anglican world has yet processed what just happened.
Why meh? I see so much condemnation of this and that and who is correct and who is not, I just do not care anymore. When Judgement Day comes, will there be a tally-sheet to see which of man's rules were breached? The evolution of religion is due to man's insecurity concerning the inerrant Word of God. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. I pray for us all.
What if the Trinitarian Christians had said "we just do not care" about the Arians, in the days of the early church? Maintaining the purity of the faith taught by Christ and the Apostles is worth some friction and the heat created therefrom.
That’s a rather inelegant (and possibly sacrilegious) way to put it. Great saints of the Church suffered and died for those “Christological formulas.” Like it or not, the Anglican standard of faith is and always has been the Creeds. That’s what we pledge to uphold at baptism, that’s what we profess at Communion, and that’s what the Catechism asks us to affirm. Assent to the Creeds is the measure of orthodoxy. Beyond that I don’t know what else to tell you.
There's a good (though scholarly) book on the Council of Nicea and the theological issues surrounding it. The book is Nicea and its Legacy by Lewis Ayres from Oxford Press. It's a history and a background of the various theological convictions of the main players and their influences: Arias, Athanasius, Eusebius, etc. It's a good book to have in your library for discussions like this one (pro or con -- the book doesn't really have a doctrinal axe to grind). It's not my favorite on the topic, but it is the best single-volume treatment I have found that has up-to-date scholarship (as of 2004 when it was published, anyway). Another decent history is The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) by Leo Donald Davis. It's a slim book on a huge topic so it leaves out a lot of detail and (I think) gets some things wrong, but it's still good for a quick capsule overview of this part of church history.
I did not say "I do not care". I mean that there is little I can do to alleviate the split in Anglicanism at this point in my life. I am disabled, aged and unable to travel to any conclave or gathering of any distance for discussion. So, I live in my little world and wait until I am called to leave this Life.
are you virtue signaling? Because you’re virtue signaling; Great saints did die for them, but great saints died for the rest of Christian orthodoxy as well it is quite possible to fully affirm the Creeds and yet lack the rest of the Faith, thus becoming a heretic -We pledge a lot more than the creeds at Baptism -We pledge a lot more than the creeds at Confirmation -The 1662 warning before Communion doesn’t even mention the Creeds -the Church Catechism gives about 25% of total room to the creeds, filling the rest with all the other parts of the faith Like I said, it’s quite possible to affirm the Creeds and still be a heretic
Isn't there a divide in Anglicanism over the filioque in the Nicene Creed? With the ACNA requiring the filioque in the Nicene Creed while the Church of England and the other liberal branches not requiring the filioque?