The Jerusalem Declaration, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, and the Anglican Church in North America

By Robin G. Jordan

I combed through Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, the GAFCON Theological Group’s exposition of the Jerusalem Declaration, and I found no mention of “apostolic succession” in the Catholic sense of the transmission of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit (including the power to transform bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood, to give the water in the font the power to regenerate, to absolve sins, and to confirm and ordain) through the laying-on-of the hands of a bishop in a personal line of succession that can be traced back to the apostles.

I did come across the following passages that appear to preclude this particular doctrine. The first is taken from the GAFCON Theological Group’s exposition of Clause 3: The rule of faith:

“The Church is apostolic because it rests on the foundation of the apostolic witness to Christ. The teaching of the apostles of Christ is the treasure of the Church which shapes its life and witness.” [p. 34]

The second is taken from their exposition of Clause 4: The doctrine of the Church:

“The Holy Spirit empowers the church to serve its Lord, Jesus Christ, and equip it to participate in Christ’s own mission. The Holy Spirit convicts people of sin, empowers them for service, comforts them and reveals God’s truth to them. The particular work of the Holy Spirit can be seen gloriously in the history of revivals, charismatic renewal and mission in many parts of the world. The work of the Holy Spirit in the church does not imply that he is subject to the institution of the church, nor that he is a possession of a particular part of the church (my emphasis). The Holy Spirit is greater than the church, and is at work in the world, directing people to Jesus (John 16:13-15). On more than one occasion the New Testament speaks of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7; Romans 8:9).” [p. 37]

The third is also taken from the GAFCON Theological Group’s exposition of Clause 4:

“We are apostolic because our life together is founded on the faith of the apostles, and we are called, like them, to go into the world with the good news of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18-20).” [p. 39]

The following is the GAFCON Theological Group’s exposition of Clause 7: Clerical orders.

“1. What do we mean by ‘ministry’ in the church?

“We affirm that Christ himself is the chief minister and source of all ministry within the Church. He is the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls (I Peter 2:25). He called a people to himself, instituted the sacraments and gave the Church authority and mission, orientation and goal. He exemplified and defined ministry as service in his teaching (Mark 10:45) and by taking a towel to wash the feet of his disciples (John 13:4-5). Christian ministry is not the sole possession, nor the sole responsibility of those who have been ordained. Ordained ministry is set in the context of the ministry of all believers.

“We affirm lay ministry, not only in a clearly ecclesiastical context, such as the ministry of Readers, teachers, and evangelists, but also the ministry which takes place in the workplace and the local community. In fact ministry is the service of God that is undertaken every hour of every day. There is a priesthood of all believers inasmuch as we all have direct access to God through Jesus Christ, and we are all called to witness, to evangelise, and to serve him in all our activities.

“It is the task of ordained ministers ‘to prepare God’s people for the works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up’ (Ephesians 4:12). The gifts distributed by the Holy Spirit to each member of the body are to be used ‘for the common good’ (I Corinthians 12:7). It is by working together, proclaiming Christ and living as his faithful and loving disciples, that the various orders of ministry function properly.

“2. What do we understand about the ordained ministry?

“Before and after his resurrection, Jesus Christ provided for the care and nourishment of his Church by giving his word to his apostles (Matthew 28:18-20; John 17:20) and then, on the day of Pentecost, by pouring out his Spirit (John 14:15-17; Acts 2:32-33). From the earliest days of the Christian Church, it has been a vital concern to recognise those whom God has called and gifted to serve and lead his people (Acts 6:1-7; 13:1-3).

“The historic threefold order of bishop, priest (or presbyter) and deacon is a particular expression of these New Testament concerns. This order became widespread in the early years of the Christian Church and was retained at the time of the English Reformation; it is still the pattern to which Anglicans are committed, in obedience to Scripture and out of respect for history.

“The Anglican Ordinal (which has been bound within the Book of Common Prayer since 1552) sets out the qualities and responsibilities of each of these orders of ministry, and provides a form of recognition that those so ordained are called and gifted by God. It reminds all bishops, priests and deacons that those they serve are the precious body of Christ, and they are responsible to him for the faithful discharge of their ministry.

“Bishops are called to be the chief pastor in their diocese, to teach the Christian faith, to banish error, to live a godly life and be gentle with the flock, properly to administer the sacraments, and to lead in mission. Bishops uniquely are to ordain and send out others in ordained ministry.

“Priests are called to be ‘messengers, watchmen, and stewards of the Lord: to teach and to premonish, to feed and provide for the Lord’s family; to seek for Christ’s sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for his children who are in the midst of this naughty world, that they may be saved through Christ for ever.’

“Deacons are called to serve and assist the Church’s ministry.

“Each minister is to provide an example of Christian living to other people. And, since ministry is a precious gift, each minister is accountable for it. There is a rightful dignity to the ordained ministry, but this is never merely a human pride. It is the dignity of the cross-bearing servant, faithfully following the master.

“Ordained ministers are always and only ministers of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (my emphasis). This gospel is entrusted to them (I Timothy 1:12-14), and they are accountable to the Lord for their faithfulness to it. We acknowledge, as a part of our Anglican heritage, that no ordained minister is beyond accountability within the body of the church. In extreme cases, where, for example, there are clear breaches of the requirements of the Ordinal, the person concerned, though ordained or consecrated, forfeits the rights and dignity of the office which has been entrusted to that person. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that such a verdict may not be reached quickly, lightly or without considerable prayerful thought and widespread consultation.” [pp. 48-50]

I do not see in this commentary any suggestions of a Catholic view of apostolic succession, ordination, and the sacraments. On the other hand, it is consistent with how evangelicals in the Anglican Church have historically viewed ordained ministry.

The UK Anglo-Catholics for the most part did not attend GAFCON. The US Anglo-Catholics who did attend the conference returned home, complaining that the Jerusalem Declaration was too evangelical in its theological content. They had sought to make the declaration more Catholic in its doctrine and had been thwarted in their efforts. The dissatisfaction of US Anglo-Catholics with the Jerusalem Declaration, as I have stated elsewhere, prompted the former Episcopal, now Anglican Bishop of Fort Worth Jack Iker to reassure those in the ACNA that the Common Cause Theological Statement, not the Jerusalem Declaration, would determine the direction of the ACNA. The Common Cause Theological Statement accommodates Anglo-Catholics on a number of key issues—Holy Scripture, the ecumenical Councils, bishops, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-Nine Articles. At the ACNA Provincial Council meeting that preceded the inaugural ACNA Provincial Assembly that ratified the proposed ACNA constitution and canons including a modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement, the Anglo-Catholic members of the ACNA Provincial Council opposed any changes in the language of that modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement that would have made it more acceptable to evangelicals. They claimed such alterations would lead to the unraveling of the fragile détente between Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals in the ACNA. It was on Bishop Iker’s motion that the ACNA Provincial Assembly voted to accept the modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement with only one slight change. It altered the numbering of the clauses in the theological statement to reflect the removal of the affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration from Article I of the ACNA constitution and its placement in the Preface to that constitution.

In the Jerusalem Declaration the signatories of that declaration emphatically announce that its fourteen clauses are the tenets, or doctrines, underpinning Anglican identity. In its constitution, however, the ACNA relegates its affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration to the to the introductory remarks prefixed to that document, giving it only a token place in the ACNA. It identifies as “characteristic of the Anglican Way and essential for membership” in the ACNA the “seven elements” in the modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement incorporated into its constitution. As Bishop Iker observed in the same interview in which he reassured Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA that the Common Cause Theological Statement would be determining the direction of the ACNA, the Common Cause Theological Statement differs in wording and emphasis from the Jerusalem Declaration. Bishop Iker dismissed these differences as “slight” but a comparison of the two documents shows that he in so characterizing the differences is indulging in understatement and minimizing the substantial differences between the documents.

More recently, Philip Ashey, the chief executive officer of the American Anglican Council, announced that the AAC is forming a North American chapter of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and this chapter would be a “ministry partner” of the ACNA. Under the provisions of the ACNA canons to be a ministry partner of the ACNA, an organization must subscribe without reservation to the “seven elements” of the modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement incorporated in the ACNA constitution. The Rev. Ashey also presented a vision of the North American FCA chapter that is quite different from the vision of the Global Anglican Future Statement for that organization. Instead of functioning as an independent “renewal movement” in the Anglican ecclesial bodies in North America, in the ACNA and the Continuing Anglican Churches, as well as the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church, in the vision that the Rev. Ashey articulated, the FCA in North America would be ancillary to the ACNA and would carry out its objectives.

While the ACNA may have been formed in response to the GAFCON call for a new province in North America to uphold orthodox faith and practice, there appears to be a real disconnect between the ACNA and GAFCON, in terms of doctrine and vision of the role of the FCA. The GAFCON Primates have recognized the ACNA as “genuinely Anglican” and a number of Anglican ecclesiastic organizations involved in GAFCON and the FCA have followed suit. But what is troublesome to people like myself is how they can extend such recognition to the ACNA when it is evident that a substantial part of the ACNA does not accept the Jerusalem Declaration’s view of what underpins Anglican identity and rejects the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision of the FCA.

One possible explanation is that they are choosing to give the ACNA the benefit of the doubt and to apply the principle of charitable assumption in hopes that such generosity will encourage the ACNA to move closer to the positions articulated in the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement. But this is like rewarding a child for only partially completing a task when the goal for the child to complete the task. Having been rewarded for doing the task in part, the child will have no incentive to finish it.

Another explanation that is in circulation is that the GAFCON Primates and those involved in GAFCON and the FCA have no other choice but to extend their recognition to the ACNA since denying that recognition would play into the hands of the liberals in the Anglican Church of Canada, The Episcopal Church and other provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion. While there may be some truth to this view, unqualified recognition of the ACNA takes away any incentive on the part of the ACNA to change the doctrinal positions adopted in its constitution and canons. It conveys the message to those within the ACNA that these positions are acceptable. Should the Church of England’s House of Bishops and subsequently its General Synod recognize the ACNA and call for its admission as the thirty-ninth province of the Anglican Communion, as GAFCON and FCA supporters are urging, the C of E Bishops and General Synod will eliminate any motivation on the part of the ACNA to move closer to the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision for the FCA.

There are also those within the ACNA, as well as outside that ecclesial body, who are prepared to spin such unqualified recognition as unqualified acceptance of the ACNA doctrinal positions. This may not accurately represent the position of those extending recognition to the ACNA but it is open to that interpretation. A number of Anglican leaders associated with GAFCON and the FCA have privately expressed reservations about the ACNA but have not gone on record, in part out of desire to maintain a united front against the liberal element in the Anglican Communion and in part out of fear that their public statements might be used to harm the movement to establish a new province in North America to uphold orthodox faith and practice. Their reticence, however, also creates the false impression that they accept the present direction of the ACNA.

A third explanation is that the supporters of GAFCON and the FCA outside of North America who have extended recognition to the ACNA naively believe that the ACNA actually accepts the tenets set forth in the Jerusalem Declaration and the vision of the FCA articulated in the Global Anglican Future Statement. They are not sufficiently informed about the real situation in the ACNA or dismiss any information that does not support how they wish to perceive the ACNA. This explanation is certainly applicable to a large segment of the ACNA.

In all likelihood all three explanation apply. In any event unqualified recognition of the ACNA is contributing to the persistence of an undesirable situation in the ACNA.

To rectify this situation, the following plan of action commends itself.

First, GAFCON and FCA supporters outside of North America need to thoroughly investigate conditions within the ACNA and to qualify their recognition of the ACNA, affirming the ACNA where it does adhere to the tenets of the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision for the FCA and calling for change where it does not. They also need to issue periodic reports on the progress of the ACNA toward greater adherence to the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision for the FCA.

Second, Anglicans and Episcopalians in Canada and the United States joining the FCA need to establish a FCA chapter in North America that is independent of the AAC and the ACNA and any other Anglican ecclesiastical organization or ecclesial body in their part of the North American continent. The FCA in North America will not fulfill the vision of the FCA as a renewal movement articulated in the Global Anglican Future Statement if it is tied to any existing organization or body and subordinated to its purposes.

Third, a credible alternative to the ACNA needs to be launched in North America in response to the GAFCON call for the formation of a new province to uphold orthodox faith and practice. As the only horse in the race the ACNA can amble along as it pleases. A second horse in the running, which more closely adheres to the tenets of the Jerusalem Declaration and more fully embraces the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision of the FCA, would draw attention to the ACNA’s failings in these two areas as well as its other shortcomings. It would raise doubts as to whether the ACNA is truly representative of all North American Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice. It would provide some motivation for the ACNA to move closer to the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision for the FCA or drop out of the race.

Fourth, within the ACNA itself a movement is needed to bring the ACNA into greater conformity with the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision of the FCA at all levels. Congregations and dioceses or other groupings need not only to incorporate the Jerusalem Declaration into their doctrinal statements along with the Thirty-Nine Articles but also in practice to conform to their teaching. They need to adopt the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and liturgical services in contemporary English based upon the 1662 Prayer Book and discontinue their use of the 1928 Prayer Book, the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book, any contemporary English liturgical services based upon these two service books, the 1979 Prayer Book, and the 1985 Canadian Book of Alternative Services. They need to join with Anglicans and Episcopalians outside the ACNA in establishing an independent FCA.