See also my previous posts:

• Scargill House to close
• The closure of Scargill House - a response from the Chair of Trustees

• The Washington Times: STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN: Celebrity revivals fleeting
• Sunday Times: Liam Clarke: Lo, a resurrection brought forth the miracle of publicity

Update:

• Premier have a page on this 'revival': Florida Outpouring | Premier.org.uk, Features
• Christianity Magazine has Todd Bentley on the cover of its latest magazine - John Buckeridge writes here: God on the TV | Christianity, Editorials

I will post an item from tomorrow's Church Times when it becomes available at midnight

• Times: Church of England clergy plan mass exit over women bishops
• Daily Mail: 1,300 clergy threaten to defect in the women bishops row
• Ruth Gledhill Blog: Trads threaten walk-out over women (includes link to letter from the 1300)
• Telegraph: Church of England faces split over women bishops
• BBC: Clergy revolt over women bishops

• Church Times 20 June 2008: Synod urged in two different directions on women bishops
• Church Times 30 May 2008 'Chaos’ warning as rumours fly after Bishops’ meeting

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has responded to the final declaration of the Global Anglican Future Conference with the following statement:

The Final Statement from the GAFCON meeting in Jordan and Jerusalem contains much that is positive and encouraging about the priorities of those who met for prayer and pilgrimage in the last week. The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues. I agree that the Communion needs to be united in its commitments on these matters, and I have no doubt that the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON’s deliberations. Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion

However, GAFCON’s proposals for the way ahead are problematic in all sorts of ways, and I urge those who have outlined these to think very carefully about the risks entailed.

A ‘Primates’ Council’ which consists only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion will not pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion. And any claim to be free to operate across provincial boundaries is fraught with difficulties, both theological and practical – theological because of our historic commitments to mutual recognition of ministries in the Communion, practical because of the obvious strain of responsibly exercising episcopal or primatial authority across enormous geographical and cultural divides.

Two questions arise at once about what has been proposed. By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council? And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?

No-one should for a moment impute selfish or malicious motives to those who have offered pastoral oversight to congregations in other provinces; these actions, however we judge them, arise from pastoral and spiritual concern. But one question has repeatedly been raised which is now becoming very serious: how is a bishop or primate in another continent able to discriminate effectively between a genuine crisis of pastoral relationship and theological integrity, and a situation where there are underlying non-theological motivations at work? We have seen instances of intervention in dioceses whose leadership is unquestionably orthodox simply because of local difficulties of a personal and administrative nature. We have also seen instances of clergy disciplined for scandalous behaviour in one jurisdiction accepted in another, apparently without due process.  Some other Christian churches have unhappy experience of this problem and it needs to be addressed honestly.

It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion. If they are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve. This challenge is one of the most significant focuses for the forthcoming Lambeth Conference. One of its major stated aims is to restore and deepen confidence in our Anglican identity.  And this task will require all who care as deeply as the authors of the statement say they do about the future of Anglicanism to play their part.

The language of ‘colonialism’ has been freely used of existing patterns. No-one is likely to look back with complacency to the colonial legacy. But emerging from the legacy of colonialism must mean a new co-operation of equals, not a simple reversal of power. If those who speak for GAFCON are willing to share in a genuine renewal of all our patterns of reflection and decision-making in the Communion, they are welcome, especially in the shaping of an effective Covenant for our future together.

I believe that it is wrong to assume we are now so far apart that all those outside the GAFCON network are simply proclaiming another gospel. This is not the case; it is not the experience of millions of faithful and biblically focused Anglicans in every province. What is true is that, on all sides of our controversies, slogans, misrepresentations and caricatures abound.  And they need to be challenged in the name of the respect and patience we owe to each other in Jesus Christ.

I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ‘wait for one another’. I would say the same to those in whose name this statement has been issued. An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents.

© Rowan Williams

The formation of the Primates’ Council is the most innovative development structurally, its relationship with the existing Primates’ Meeting – whether its members attend or not – is still to be worked out. It is unlikely that relations will be warm, given the declared support in Jerusalem for continuing action in “churces under false leadership”.

The implications of the Jerusalem Declaration are more far-reaching, however. Whereas most commentators were expecting a justification from GAFCON for their meeting, and possibly a restatement of their commitment to the gospel.

This, though, has been framed to be more widely used (and framed literally: the Declaration sits inside its own box in the middle of the final communiqué). One indication of this is the tempered language, such as the absence of a specific reference to homosexuality or to recent events. Another is the unexpectedly broad sweep of its contents: references to the four ecumenical councils and the three historic creeds, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the historic Episcopal succession.

Although giving the impression of having been prepared in advance, the Declaration was worked on at the conference. For example, African participants asked for the inclusion of hell in the passage referring to Christ as “humanity’s only saviour from sin, judgement and hell”.

The GAFCON leadership has not yet given any indication of how the Jerusalem Declaration might be used, beyond describing it as the basis for their fellowship of confessing Anglicans. It might thus be described as the gateway to acceptance by the conservative Anglicans, and the test of faith for provinces, dioceses, and congregations alike.

In the past, references to documents such as the Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10, and the C of E House of Bishops’ statement Issues in Human Sexuality, have served as a form of shorthand when discerning where a church or an individual stands on the ethical scale.

The Jerusalem Declaration introduces a firm doctrinal element to this. It is conceivable, then, that the Declaration will become a new test of faith, beginning with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops attending the Lambeth Conference. If they fail to take it seriously, the GAFCON participants will be confirmed in their plan to progress along the path towards a more independent branch of Anglicanism.

Paul Handley has been in Jerusalem covering GAFCON for the Church Times. For a full list of our GAFCON news items and blog posts see this page: GAFCON in the Church Times

There was concentrated silence as Archbishop Orombi read through the four-page statement. He paused only once, to repeat the line: “Our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion.”

After the applause, the Primate of Nigeria, the Most Revd Peter Akinola, asked the participants: “Is this your mind?” There was a resounding “Yes”, which he asked the participants to repeat: “Not loud enough!” “Yes!”

The five primates present then signed the following statement:

“We, the undersigned Primates of the Anglican Communion have met with Anglicans from around the world at the Global Anglican Future Conference, June 22-29 2008, in Jerusalem.

“We have read and, on behalf of ourselves and those we lead, have agreed with the Conference Statement.

“We thank God for the encouragement of the Confernce to form the Primates’ Council of the GAFCON Movement and to organise and expand the fellowship of confessing Anglicans.

“We accept the urging of the Confence ‘to authenticate and recognise confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and congregations and to encourage all Anglicans to promote the gospel and defend the faith’.

“We accept these responsibilities and challenges and ask for your prayer and support in the name of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

There followed a spontaneous doxology and songs, until the Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, asked participants to “stop enjoying yourselves” and prepare for the final eucharist.

In 2003, the American revisionists, in a foolhardy way, did something that put a fact on the table [the consecration of an active gay man as Bishop of New Hampshire], then dared us all to do something about it. Well, it’s happened, and they’ve got to live with the consequences.”

Asked if GAFCON had created a separate Church, to all intents and purposes, Dr Jensen said:”Does that lead to separate communions or denominations? No. The network is going to look a bit different, and clearly the Primates’s Council is going to operate as a new centre of authority within the Anglican Communion. But it doesn’t presume to have all authority.

Nor was it a “church within a church”: “I don’t like that expression”, Dr Jensen said. “because, first of all, I don’t think the Anglican Communion is a ‘Church’, and secondly, because I don’t think what we’ve created here is a Church.” A better parallel was with the Anglo-Catholic movement in the 19^th century, or the Evangelical movement of the 18^th. It was a “spiritual movement . . . a missionary movement.”

A key indication of whether or not this is a split will be continuing communion with those outside the new fellowship. Dr Jensen was adamant: in the Church of Australia, he said, “many of the other bishops would not sign this or be part of this movement. But am I out of fellowship with them? No. That would be a very serious thing for me, if any suggestion were made that I had somehow broken away from the Anglican Church of Australia. I certainly haven’t done so.”