FIFNA Response to GAFCON [7 Jan 2019]
“Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you, to contend for the Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”
Jude 3
Beloved in Christ,
As Forward in Faith North America we represent several jurisdictions in Anglicanism, and as such are blessed to have clergy and laity who are united in one purpose “contending for the Faith which was once delivered to the saints.” We continue to pray for our members in the Episcopal Church as they witness ongoing issues that have caused many to leave most especially over the last five decades. Likewise, we pray for our members who are participating in ways that will reunite brothers and sisters in concordats, both specifically with Anglican jurisdictions and also with those who broadly come under the category of “non-papal Catholics.”
In particular we wish to commend the recent GAFCON gathering in Jerusalem for their boldness in proclaiming the Gospel and for standing in the face of non-Biblical revisions of the “Faith once delivered.” We commit ourselves to praying for the Most Rev. Foley Beach, the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America and for the Most Rev. Ben Kwashi of Jos in Nigeria as they soon will assume the critical leadership of the GAFCON Movement. Most particularly we pledge ourselves to pray for Archbishop and Mrs. Kwashi as they continue to be attacked by Islamic forces. The unity of Anglicans specifically and of Christians globally is critical at this time in history as we see a divided Christianity being attacked by an ever-growing number of people united to destroy the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church – the Bride of Christ – the Body of Christ. The outside attacks on the Faith are regularly in the news, requiring Christians more and more to address the problems within the Body of Christ which prevent us from a unified response.
Forward in Faith, and our predecessors the Episcopal Synod of America, the Evangelical and Catholic Mission, the Committee on Apostolic Ministry, and the American Church Union have spoken clearly for decades about aberrations and innovations that have caused division in Anglicanism. Sadly, even some of our own have created new categories for the evaluation of innovative theologies. “Core Doctrine” and “First and Second Order Issues” are subjective terms and apart from not being able to be supported historically, can be used by anyone who is seeking to defend their reasons for revising the “Faith once delivered.” Forward in Faith has labored to maintain the highest level of Communion possible in the midst of the many changes that have been imposed upon Catholic Anglicans over the years. Our heritage is an unbroken one from Jerusalem to the lands that produced Saints such as Alban, David, Patrick, George, Augustine, Hilda and Dame Julian. Our unique Heritage has had a profound effect on countless Anglican
Worthies, including C.S. Lewis, T.S. Eliot and numerous Monks, Nuns, and Missionaries. The various Catholic Congresses of the last century have articulated well the so-called Englishpatrimony of which we of Forward in Faith count ourselves heirs. Being an heir carries with it a
responsibility of speaking the Truth boldly but in love.
Patrimony of which we of Forward in Faith count ourselves heirs. Being an heir carries with it a responsibility of speaking the Truth boldly but in love. The matter of Holy Orders is not a second order issue for it is grounded not only in the Doctrine of Creation and in the Doctrine of the Incarnation with the implications well-articulated in the qualifications listed in the Pastoral Epistles. We are compelled to say that failure to address and resolve a major stumbling block to the Unity of Christianity, in particular with regard to the two larger Communions, will result in ongoing divisions and a precious loss of time in mobilizing
Christians to combat the attacks from without and within. A truly Orthodox, truly Conservative, truly Traditional, and truly Missional approach must take place if we are to be engaged in reclaiming the world for Jesus Christ. Enshrining any moment or even several decades in Church history will not serve us well. A truly Conciliar approach is essential, which will mean reminding ourselves of the Historic Councils’ proceedings and revisiting how the Church has dealt with heresies of the past. Schism is counterproductive, but heresies which contain enough truth to be believable and somewhat convincing infect the Body.
We are intentionally named “Forward in Faith” as we continue to move into the future armed with the Gospel, the Sacraments, the Councils, the Apostolic Ministry – “Contending for the Faith once delivered to the Saints.”
Who is this essay aimed? If you really want people to fight the Holy Orders battle, why don’t you compile a data base of ACNA? Give folks something to work with. Most of us have no access to pertinent information. List all of the bishops and arch bishops and their position on Holy Orders. List all of the dioceses and the gender of their ordained priests and deacons. It’s been several years since I’ve attended a synod in the Diocese of Cascadia but there was one deaconess at that time. It is my understanding Bishop Kevin waffles on the subject. He’s a big boy. He can clarify his position. Sometimes with prayer and study the Holy Spirit gets it wrong and requires further brow beating before he endorses the post-Christian view. /s
Do I detect a hint of you mellowing a tiny bit? 🙂
No. No. Say it’s not true! Okay, maybe I’ll have to take a refresher class in being ornery. Hope they have a senior citizen discount.
I believe you [we] can audit classes for $free$
Agree Reebherb. For myself, it is good to observe the good work Forward in Faith in the UK are doing. That said, I do feel that, like Gafcon, they need to actually be more direct on issues, and not keep saying things like ‘They are concerned” or “dissapointed” over issues such as the use of baptismal liturgy for effectively new gender recognition services. Let’s see a bit more standing up and prayerfully challenging these matters, as opposed to the typical British politeness!!
FIF-North America is to be commended for not mincing words. This is the first time in memory that a “strongly worded letter” has actually used the strong word (“heresies”) rather than one of the “good disagreement” words like “errors”, “issues”, or “different interpretations of scripture” to describe the imposition of heretical doctrines.
Looking at the banner photo it would appear that the matter could be resolved within a decade.
Nice choice of photo for this story guys. Looks like a victory parade.
And yes, I am being sarcastic
Non-Papal Catholicism seems to be the only way to go. We have a golden opportunity to do this right. The truth about the ACNA and many of its pro WO bishops is never printed–they are as hostile to the catholic wing of the ACNA, and other Anglo-Catholics, as anyone in the Episcopal Church. I fear that the “half-a-loaf” gang w/in Anglo-Catholicism will win and merely succeed is setting the doomsday clock back 15 minutes. Haven’t we compromised enough?? The question is do we want to be part of something big or do we want to be part of something true?? “What profits a man….”
It is more complex than that. Many who are “pro WO” come from the catholic wing themselves, and many anti WO people are evangelical.
That’s wrong. Name one AC who is pro WO.
spikus- note that MichaelA used the term “catholic wing”. As with TEC (where the number of remaining Anglo Catholics is tiny, and canonically outlawed), the “affirming catholics”- those who reject catholic doctrine but retain the vestments, have assumed the mantle of “catholic wing” in England and Australia. Many self identify as Anglo Catholic, even though they have desecrated the Sacraments of Holy Orders, Marriage and Holy Communion- and thereby have effectively abandoned the communion of the Church.
On your original point, yes, there are a large number of anti-Catholics in ACNA, including a number of the bishops- and a number of ignorant clergy who have no idea what the Catholic tradition in Anglicanism is, they just assume they should be against it because it isn’t “Protestant” or “Evangelical” and there is no projection screen or praise band.
In response to myself, I should note that also within ACNA (and Australia, and England) there are many Evangelical and Protestant Anglican clergy who do get it, and who do recognize the Catholic tradition as a legitimate expression of Anglicanism.
So please forgive me for painting with a broad brush, but it is irritating to be referred to by supposed conservatives as “not a real Anglican” because one is “too Catholic.”
Good point, one of the problems for our perspective as evangelicals in Australia is that the catholic wing here were largely taken over by liberals during the 60s and 70s (who do not deserve the name catholic at all).
I am not saying we don’t have genuine faithful anglo-catholics in the Anglican Church of Australia, but they are few and far between.
Whereas it seems that you have many more in the USA and that played a major role in making both the Continuum churches and ACNA a reality.
MichaelA- while I certainly do not qualify as an historian of the Anglican Church of Australia, it has always been my understanding that the greater part of the real Anglo Catholics in Australia (or at least the clergy and large part of their congregations) left in the early 1990s over the ordination of women, and formed the Anglo-Catholic Church of Australia (a constituent of the Traditional Anglican Communion) or joined other “continuing” churches or went to Rome (and many of the TAC went to Rome a couple decades later in the formation of the Ordinariate).
*gross*
Thanks for the info… I do appreciate it. There is more and more to definately be discerning about, as everything falls apart and many are deceptive.
Hi Spikus, just to be clear and as tj correctly notes, I was not accusing any true Anglo-Catholics of being pro-WO.
I am beginning to research Papal Catholicisim, spikus, and am asking the Lord for prayerful discernment regarding this.
I am also tracking reference to “Union of Scranton” that ‘I recently caught wind of’ in another article, somewhere.
How can FIF-NA pledge loyalty to Gafcon while being content with being based in TEC?
FIFNA is not based in TEC. A few of its members remain in TEC. Its membership made up a very large percentage of those who were deposed by TEC. There may be a couple retired bishops in their 80s or 90s who remain members, but the active bishop members are all in ACNA or the Continuum. FIF-NA was one of the founding organizations (like the AAC) in the formation of ACNA.
[…] very interesting – and positive – sign, I think: this article from Anglican Ink titled Forward in Faith – NA pledges loyalty to GAFCON…. I think it is positive both for Forward in Faith NA’s being willing to work with GAFCON, […]