Sense over women bishops

Posted on by
Reply

For once the Church of England seems to have made a very sensible decision. The General Synod last night passed a motion (see Ruth Gledhill’s blog for a detailed account of the debate) affirming its intention to move towards having women bishops and agreeing these two important safeguards:

this Synod…

(b) affirm its view that special arrangements be available, within the existing structures of the Church of England, for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests;

(c) affirm that these should be contained in a statutory national code of practice to which all concerned would be required to have regard …

Thus the church has gone out of its way to make proper provision, through a binding code of practice, for those who do not accept women as bishops. What more does that small minority in the church want? The code of practice is still to be drafted, but these people are not interested in trying to make it work as well as it can in their favour. Apparently they will not accept anything called a code of practice but only something enshrined in detail in parliamentary legislation.

This is what I have condemned as Caesaropapism, putting the church under the control of the church. This is what I fundamentally cannot accept in the Church of England. But I am astonished to find this position being espoused not just by Anglo-Catholics but by the conservative evangelical John Richardson, who quotes with approval Thomas Cranmer’s argument that the apostles did not have the right to appoint ministers to churches but that the secular authorities do have this right. The problem is that this right of the secular authorities is not a God-given one but one asserted by Henry VIII, under the guidance of the same Cranmer. Henry and Cranmer did what they may have needed to do in their time, but Cranmer was wrong if he intended to elevate this to a permanent general principle. Over the centuries the headship of the sovereign and parliament over the Church of England has quite properly dwindled away to something largely nominal. Some of us would like to see even the remaining vestiges swept away. I am sure that even more of us have serious problems with the attempts of people like John Richardson to reassert and extend state control of the church. That is why the church rightly rejected the amendments yesterday calling for such matters to be enshrined in legislation and agreed on the principle of a binding code of practice.

David Ker, his comments and his Mum

Posted on by
Reply

David Ker has posted about his Mum (as she is British I use the British spelling!) who is seriously ill at the moment.

Because of this I have taken the unusual step of withdrawing, at least temporarily, my post “A blind man leads the blind”, which was critical of David for closing comments on his blog (understandable in the circumstances) and for what he wrote in a post which he has withdrawn.

Please join me in praying for David’s Mum and the whole family.

Todd Bentley does NOT kick a man

Posted on by
82

Dave Warnock links to a very poor quality video of Todd Bentley and claims that

you can actually see him kicking someone in the stomach when that person is suffering from cancer of the colon. I literally could not believe my eyes.

(UPDATE 4th July: in response to this post Dave has edited his post to delete the inaccurate word “kicking”, see also the first comment below.)

And on this basis Dave writes (his emphasis):

But I can say that my doubts have been removed. … I do believe that Todd Bentley is a false prophet.

Well, Dave, it might help you to believe your eyes if you used them, and to see what is actually happening, not the subtitles which have been added to the video. It’s not easy to see with someone’s head in the way – but perhaps there is a good reason why the video was not taken from the official God TV video stream but from an amateur recording of a screen with heads in the way, making it impossible to be sure exactly what happened. But even with this poor quality it seems very clear that Todd could not possibly be kicking the man with his foot, as both his feet are close to the ground throughout. What Todd later says he has done is that he has kneed the man, and that is what I think I am seeing on the video.

The person who wrote the subtitles claims that later on in the video the man was afraid. If you look at his face at the time, it is clear that the man is smiling, perhaps bemused but genuinely smiling. Although he is in some pain, he has got up from a crouching position within a few seconds and has clearly not been seriously hurt.

Now I accept that there are questions about whether kneeing someone in the stomach is a proper thing to do in such circumstances. But it is certainly a much less serious matter than kicking them. And I would expect a Christian minister to check his facts before declaring another Christian minister “a false prophet”. After all, telling lies in the Lord’s name is one of the real biblical marks of a false prophet.

For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Matthew 7:2 (TNIV)

Wheat or weed?

Posted on by
12

My commenter Daron Medway has brought up the parable of the wheat and the weeds in Matthew 13 and how it relates to the issues concerning The Donatists, GAFCON, and the Todd Bentley critics. I refuse to use the traditional name “the wheat and the tares” for this parable because I have never heard the word “tares” used in any other context. Anyway, my preferred title “wheat and weeds” is not only alliterative but, by a happy chance of the modern English language, illustrates within itself one of the main points of the parable, that “wheat” and “weed” are indistinguishable except at the end, and even then only slightly distinct.

I was a bit reluctant to apply this parable to the situation in question because I am aware of a popular misunderstanding of the parable, going back I think to Augustine, in which the field is not the world, as Jesus clearly states in Matthew 13:38, but the visible church. The parable is not teaching, as Augustine misinterpreted it, that false believers should be allowed to remain alongside true ones in the church. At this point I think I am agreeing with Daron. The point is rather that Christians, the servants in the parable, should not be trying to judge the world around them now, but leaving it to God to sort out the mess at the end of time. This might be a lesson for the US government to stop interfering in other countries’ problems, but it is not one for the GAFCON leaders or the critics of Todd Bentley.

But there is a message for this situation from the parable of the wheat and the weeds. That message is that wheat and weeds, at least some kinds of weeds, look very much the same until wheat sprouts and forms ears (verse 26); it was only then that the servants could distinguish them. That is, the difference between the two could be discerned only when the fruit became visible. This is of course the same teaching as Jesus gave in the Sermon on the Mount:

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

Matthew 7:15-18 (TNIV)

No one can tell the difference from the outward appearance, for both sheep and wolves look like sheep. The only way to distinguish between the two groups is to wait for the fruit to appear.

This implies that it is still rather early to make definitive judgments about Todd Bentley. I think there has been good fruit, but there have also been reports of bad fruit. We will have to wait and see.

As for making judgments about errant Anglicans, there has been much more time to assess their fruit. I am not in a position to make personal judgments, but if I can trust what others say there has been plenty of bad fruit produced in certain areas and not much good. So we can be rather sure that there are false prophets around. What to do about them, when they are in positions of authority in the church, is another issue. Does the principle of the parable apply, to leave them be until God sorts things out at the end of time? I’m not sure.

Caesaropapism, a dangerous path for the Church of England

Posted on by
Reply

In a previous post I mentioned how the GAFCON process seemed to be straying into the error of Donatism. Meanwhile it is somewhat ironic to find that another group of conservative Anglicans, this time only in the Church of England, are falling into the error of the opponents of Donatism, Caesaropapism, the teaching that the secular authorities have authority over the church.

One of the first historical examples of Caesaropapism was when the emperor Constantine banished the Donatists in Carthage. But actually, if this account is accurate, it was the Donatists who first appealed to the imperial commissioners to overrule the decision of the church council, only to have the emperor also find against them and enforce his findings.

Ruth Gledhill writes today, in The Times and on her blog (see my comment), of what could easily turn into a similar situation. The opponents of women bishops she writes about are not the same people as the organisers of GAFCON, but they are certainly linked. And it is these opponents who are apparently appealing to the state over the head of the church. She writes, in The Times:

The letter’s signatories – who represent 10 per cent of practising clergy and hundreds of retired priests – will accept women bishops only if they have a legal right to separate havens within the Church.

Now it is not entirely clear from the actual letter that the signatories really meant that the only safeguard they would accept would be a law enacted by Parliament, but that seems to be Ruth’s understanding of the situation. The signatories do write with approval of the safeguard they currently have in the 1993 legislation on ordination of women to the priesthood, as

the framework which has allowed us to continue to live and work in a church which has taken the decision to allow women to be ordained, but which has also made room for us, and honoured our beliefs and convictions.

And now they are requesting a similar framework for a future with women bishops, as

provision which offers us real ecclesial integrity and security.

Implicitly if not explicitly, what they are demanding is new legislation, with a threat to leave the Church of England if their demands are not met. That is to say, they are demanding Caesaropapism, that the state extends its authority over the church.

These people had better be careful, as they might find, as the Donatists did, that their appeal to the state backfires on them. The current British government is not likely to be sympathetic to any request from the church to institutionalise gender discrimination, as this would be seen from their secular viewpoint. If the government is wise, it will take the attitude of Gallio the Roman proconsul, who told the Christians and Jews to sort out their own problems without involving the state, Acts 18:12-17. But the current government, one of the most anti-clerical in British history, cannot necessarily be trusted to show this wisdom. If it is asked to intervene in this matter, it may well choose to do so not in the way requested but according to its own principles. If it does that, we can expect to see legislation removing the exemption of the church from discrimination legislation. That would imply that it is forced to appoint women, gays, lesbians, and perhaps even adherents of other religions to all church positions without discrimination. This is surely not what the opponents of women bishops want. But if they want to minimise the danger of this, they should avoid tempting the state to intervene.

The best way forward here is surely for the church to make its own binding and enforceable rules about such matters. Regrettably these signatories don’t seem to trust the General Synod to make its own rules and enforce them, but insist instead that the state does it for them. It is a sad day when Gordon Brown is considered a more trustworthy church leader than Rowan Williams.

Primates and Packer live from All Souls

Posted on by
Reply

John Richardson, the Ugley Vicar, is live blogging from All Souls Langham Place, in London, where a day conference is in session with some of the leaders who were recently at the GAFCON conference, also with J.I. Packer. John has already posted summaries of talks by Archbishop Hebry Orombi of Uganda and Archbishop Greg Venables of the Southern Cone, followed by a summary of an interview with Rev Dr Packer. This summary ends as follows:

Interviewer: What would be your wisdom about carrying on the GAFCON process in England?

JP: At the heart of the Statement is the Jerusalem Declaration. I would like to see PCCs and, where possible, Diocesan Synod, or even central bodies, committing themselves to this as their own guiding star. I would like to see the Primates who were leaders at GAFCON meeting in a public way in January 2009, casting the Jerusalem Statement into the form of a covenantal commitment, publicly subscribing to it on the part of their provinces, and also seeing diocesans subscribe to it. I would like to see it presented to new bishops appointed in the Church of England to subscribe to it, and I would like to see it established as a basis for orthodoxy and missionary action.

The goal of the Covenant Process begun in the Windsor Report would thus be achieved in essence. Anglican provinces who didn’t come along with this would be in the outer circle of limited communion for not identifying with Anglican orthodoxy.

This would be a first step in getting Anglicanism back into proper shape.

Interviewer: Thank you for letting us look into your ‘crystal ball’.

(A standing ovation was given to Dr Packer, who also stood to acknowledge it.)

It is an interesting idea to get PCCs and Synods to endorse the Jerusalem Declaration. Most of it is uncontroversial among conservative Anglicans. But the likely sticking point is this clause:

13. We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.

Before the statement can be generally accepted there needs to be some clarification, as I discussed earlier today, about how this clause is not Donatism and not in conflict with Article XXVI.

UPDATE: John Richardson has added a summary of a panel discussion, which touches on many interesting issues. Peter Jensen confirmed that ordination of women was considered a secondary issue on which opinions could differ. Greg Venables noted that he is going to Lambeth, but said:

I have very little hope for Lambeth. It is not going to be a place where we can sit people down and see what we are going to do.

The discussion summary ends as follows:

Q: Could the panel comment about how people in the CofE may most helpfully respond to GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration?

Peter Jensen: This affects everyone in the UK. Os Guinness compared it to a nuclear explosion where the fallout will happen around the world. Your presence here suggests you are deeply concerned about that fallout. GAFCON is a spiritual movement. Many of you will want to be part of it and to apply it to your local situation. There will be no vote here, but if you are convinced of this you signal so by writing in to the GAFCON website, indicating you support for the GAFCON movement.

FURTHER UPDATE: John RIchardson is blogging almost as fast as I can keep up with him! He has now blogged on the session with Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney. In this Jensen takes further the point he started on at the end of the panel discussion. He explains why he considers it important for orthodox Anglicans to make a stand on this issue, not just to keep their heads down in their parishes. He answers Rowan Williams’ criticism that GAFCON is self-appointed:

GAFCON is a very Anglican answer — a new set of instruments of unity! They were not ‘self-appointed’, they were God-appointed, from looking at the Word of God and seeing what they needed to do. …

The last two weeks have been two of the most extraordinary in my life. What we are dealing with here is not a split, but a movement possibly as significant as the Evangelical Revival, or even the Anglo-Catholic movement if you prefer, and it may bring Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics together [applause].

The day conference apparently ended with these words from Jensen:

Henry Orombi, Greg Venables, Jim Packer have all spoken about the situation. It is not for me to tell you what you must do here, apart from saying you must stand for the gospel and the Bible. We are looking to you. We need you to be strong and brave and true. We will help you. And together we will resist the forces of evil and secularism which seek to extinguish the gospel and are using the Church to do that. Stand firm.

The Donatists, GAFCON, and the Todd Bentley critics

Posted on by
Reply

The Donatists were a schismatic group in the early church, mainly in North Africa, who, to put things simply, broke away from the mainstream church because they rejected the authority of leaders, such as bishops, who had sinned. The specific problem was with Christian leaders who had compromised during a period of persecution:

The Donatists refused to accept the sacraments and spiritual authority of the priests and bishops who had fallen away from the faith during the persecution.

They refused to accept the repentance of these traditors and held that sacraments performed by them were invalid.

This is known as: ex opere operantis — Latin for from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting it. The Catholic position was (and is): ex opere operato — from the work having been worked, in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God’s work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly.

At the Reformation, although some of the radicals may have taken the Donatist position, the majority continued to hold that it was wrong. Article XXVI of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England condemns Donatism, and extends the ex opere operato principle to preaching as well as sacraments:

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

Doug Chaplin calls this The least believed article, and he may be right. It certainly seems to be the least believed by the GAFCON participants, who in their Final Statement, the same one I reported and commented on here, write:

4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.

How do they reconcile their affirmation of Article XXVI with the following part of their statement?:

13. We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed.

It seems that Donatism is still alive and well in Africa, and the other homes of the GAFCON participants.

Another place where Donatism seems to be alive and well is among the critics of Todd Bentley. The Internet, including comments on this blog, is full of savage statements which imply that because Todd allegedly did something wrong, or which might be understood as wrong, this invalidates his whole ministry. It does not. The accusations brought range from his pre-conversion criminal offence, through his tattoos, some questionable teaching about angels several years ago and his occasional use of violent methods while ministering, to his allegedly wrong fundraising methods at Lakeland. Now to those who reject Donatism these charges are of little relevance. Even if all are true and about genuine wrongdoing, this does not invalidate Todd’s preaching except when explicitly in error, nor his other ministry at least to the extent that it is sacramental. And I would hold that Todd’s ministry of healing and of impartation is genuinely sacramental, an outward sign performed by Todd of an inward work which is of the Holy Spirit.

But then could all these Donatists have it right? The anti-Donatist position clearly opens the dangerous way to the church leadership being taken over by those who compromise their faith. Indeed this happened within a generation or so of the original rejection of the Donatist position, as the anti-Donatists quickly made friends with the secular powers led by the new emperor Constantine, leading to an age in which the secular powers had authority over the church. So, if Donatism is rejected, is there any safeguard against the church lapsing into compromise?

On this point, in my opinion, the safest principle to follow is that of the wise Jewish leader Gamaliel, who advised:

Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.

Acts 5:38-39 (TNIV)

In other words, let the bad churches and ministries grow alongside the good ones, without trying to root them out, and let God provide the vindication of those which are good and the judgment on those which are not.

It should be clear how to apply this to Todd Bentley, but perhaps not to the situation GAFCON is addressing. Here in the Church of England there is room for a variety of local congregations and for the Gamaliel principle to be used to separate the good from the bad – although this is threatened by the way in which successful congregations are in effect taxed, through the Parish Share system, to subsidise those which are failing. The real problem is in North America, where Anglican church authorities are making life very difficult for orthodox congregations. My own solution to that kind of situation would not be to set up a new structure, but instead for each orthodox congregation to branch out on its own – if necessary leaving behind the assets which are now being legally disputed, and which can be a burden rather than a help to a faithful congregation. If the Anglican authorities in a certain area do not allow the faithful preaching of the Word of God, then faithful believers should wash their hands of Anglicanism and minister in other structures.

Rowan Williams and NT Wright respond to GAFCON

Posted on by
Reply

On Saturday I linked to Ruth Gledhill’s report of the final communiqué from GAFCON, with its veiled plans for schism in the Anglican Communion. She has now reported some interesting episcopal reactions, from Archbishop Rowan Williams and from “+THOMAS DUNELM:”, who for those unfamiliar with Anglican-speak is none other than the infamous NT Wright, Bishop of Durham.

The response from Williams (UPDATE: taken from here) surprises me. A large part of it focuses on the practical difficulties of schism rather than on the principles, almost suggesting that Williams is saying that the GAFCON leaders should make sure they do the schism properly. But he also claims that

The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the [GAFCON] 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.

Well, if that is true, why not present the document to the Lambeth Conference? If every province accepts it by a large majority as Rowan imagines, the schism is over. But is does Rowan really think that every province will endorse the following, even with “differences of emphasis and perspective”?:

8. We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.

If so, he is clearly even more out of touch than I had thought. And even more seriously, would there really be near universal acceptance of the following?:

5. We gladly proclaim and submit to the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, humanity’s only Saviour from sin, judgement and hell, who lived the life we could not live and died the death that we deserve. By his atoning death and glorious resurrection, he secured the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith.

In the end all that Rowan can do is to quote completely out of context

the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ‘wait for one another’.

But how long are people to wait? There needs to be a willingness to wait on both sides. The North American churches were not prepared to wait before ordaining a gay bishop etc. Why should others wait?

Then, after some negative comments by Bishop Chane, presumably of Washington DC, Ruth moves on to quote “+THOMAS DUNELM:”, NT Wright. Wright’s comments (UPDATE: taken from here) are long, and generally very positive about the GAFCON process. This part is interesting:

I fully agree with the GAFCON statement – and with Archbishop Rowan – that the Communion instruments have not been able to deal with the problems, and that we need to find better ways of going about it.

He also puts paid to any suggestion that he has a colonialist attitude:

What’s more, it is enormously exciting to live at a time when new leadership is arising from places completely outside the north Atlantic axis. Africa was one of the great cradles of early Christianity, producing such towering minds as Tertullian and Augustine. Most of us have long ago moved away from any idea that Christianity, or even Anglicanism, somehow ‘belongs’ to England or northern Europe. … I would have hoped, actually, that all this would now go without saying: that we have long moved beyond the sterile stand-off between ‘colonialism’ and ‘post-colonialism’. We are brothers and sisters in Christ. That’s what matters.

Interestingly, he says that he was not invited to GAFCON. But then that may be because he attacked it in the Church Times perhaps before the invitation list was drawn up. In fact now he seems less critical than he was before, but in the end he rejects the whole GAFCON process:

In particular, though, there is something very odd about the proposal to form a ‘Council’ and then to ask such a body to ‘authenticate and recognise confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and congregations’ – and then, as an addition, ‘to encourage all Anglicans to promote the gospel and defend the faith’. Many Anglicans around the world intend to do that in any case, and will not understand why they need to be ‘recognised’ or ‘authenticated’ by a new, self-selected and non-representative body to which they were not invited and which will not itself, it seems be accountable to anyone else.

He fears that the document

offers a blank cheque to anyone who wants to defy a bishop for whatever reasons, even if the bishop in question is scrupulously orthodox, and then to claim the right to alternative jurisdictional oversight. This cannot be the way forward; nor do I think most of those at GAFCON intended such a thing. …

… if GAFCON is to join up with the great majority of faithful, joyful Anglicans around the world, rather than to invite them to leave their present allegiance and sign up to a movement which is as yet – to put it mildly – strange in form and uncertain in destination, it is not so much that GAFCON needs to invite others to sign up and join in. Bishops, clergy and congregations should think very carefully before taking such a step, which will have enormous and confusing consequences. Rather, GAFCON itself needs to bring its rich experience and gospel-driven exuberance to the larger party where the rest of us are working day and night for the same gospel, the same biblical wisdom, the same Lord.

Indeed it would be wonderful if GAFCON could bring its experience and exuberance to the larger party. But the problem is that some of those at the party seem not to be working for the same gospel, some might wonder if even for the same Lord. If the people working together cannot even agree on their goals, there is little point in them working together as they will simply undo one another’s work. Williams and Wright claim that this is not what will happen, but Williams has failed to reassure the GAFCON primates of this. Again, Williams is saying too little, too late. Unfortunately the result is a momentum towards schism which he seems powerless to stop.

A schism or not a schism?

Posted on by
Reply

Ruth Gledhill writes:

When is a schism not a schism? When it is done by Anglicans.

This is the introduction to her post of the final statement from the GAFCON conference of conservative Anglicans, which has been held in Jerusalem this week. The 1148 participants, including 291 bishops, write the following, extracted from the statement:

We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it.

GAFCON is not just a moment in time, but a movement in the Spirit, and we hereby:
• launch the GAFCON movement as a fellowship of confessing Anglicans
• publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of the fellowship
• Encourage GAFCON Primates’ Council.

While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

This leads into what they publish as “The Jerusalem Declaration”, which is “the basis of our fellowship”. Most of this is an unremarkable statement of orthodox Anglicanism. It does contain an explicit reference to “the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman”. There is no mention of issues controversial among orthodox Anglicans such as the ordination of women. But the Declaration does include the following:

We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration. … We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed.

So there is to be a continuing GAFCON movement, with no other name given to it. The leaders are encouraging other orthodox Anglicans to join them, and to reject the authority of unorthodox leaders. If this is not schism, what is it?

The next step is to be a Primates’ Council of the leaders of the GAFCON movement, which is expected to recognise as a province the Common Cause Partnership in North America. This of course implies rejection of the authority of the existing Anglican churches in the USA and Canada, whose leaders are largely unorthodox by these GAFCON standards. But it leaves entirely open the question of what might happen in provinces, such as those of the Church of England, whose leadership is much more miixed.

The statement finishes with the following:

The meeting in Jerusalem this week was called in a sense of urgency that a false gospel has so paralysed the Anglican Communion that this crisis must be addressed. The chief threat of this dispute involves the compromising of the integrity of the church’s worldwide mission. The primary reason we have come to Jerusalem and issued this declaration is to free our churches to give clear and certain witness to Jesus Christ. It is our hope that this Statement on the Global Anglican Future will be received with comfort and joy by many Anglicans around the world who have been distressed about the direction of the Communion. We believe the Anglican Communion should and will be reformed around the biblical gospel and mandate to go into all the world and present Christ to the nations.

Do I receive this with comfort and joy? Do I expect my fellow evangelical Anglicans here in England to do so? I’m not sure yet, because there is so far no way of knowing what the consequences of this may be for the Church of England. Perhaps things will become more clear at this meeting in London next Tuesday, which I am sadly not eligible to attend – I could attend the evening meeting and just might do so.

As for the final sentence of the statement, “We believe the Anglican Communion should and will be reformed …”, I can certainly agree with “should”. But we will need to wait and see about the “will”. After all, what is in all but name a declaration of schism is hardly the best way to promote reform. It may well be that the Anglican Communion can be “reformed” only in the etymological sense “re-formed”, as a new parallel Communion of orthodox Anglicans.

The blind see and the dead are raised – here in the UK!

Posted on by
Reply

Richard Steel reports on a blind man receiving his sight, on the streets of Dudley, England, this morning. This includes a video interview with the man.

Thanks also to my commenter Rhea for the link to a report of many healings in Belfast, Northern Ireland, where there seems to be a similar outpouring to the Dudley one. The report includes a young man being raised from the dead. Where does this report come from? The BBC website!

Yes, the outpourings in Dudley and Belfast are both linked to Todd Bentley.