The Global South Conference planned for Tunisia from 12–18 October was targeted by a credible terrorist threat and cancelled.
The Global South Primates therefore met in Cairo from 14–16 October. They claimed to represent the majority of the active membership of the Anglican Communion.
Archbishop Justin Welby and Archbishop Foley Beach of the Anglican Church in North America also attended.
Unity based on truth
The Egypt gathering issued a commu-niqué which can be read in full*.
The communiqué said, among other things: ‘We, the Global South Anglicans, by God’s Grace, uphold the Biblical, orthodox faith of the Anglican Communion; the faith we received from Jesus Christ through the Apostles. We believe in the communion and unity of the one Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church. This unity is based on the truth revealed to us in the scripture; it is a unity on the essentials of faith. We also believe in principled diversity in the non-essentials. “In essentials, unity; in non-essen-tials, liberty; in all things, charity.”…
‘We studied the letter of invitation from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the upcoming Primates meeting. We have agreed to attend the meeting, and welcome the invitation for the Primates to suggest the items of the agenda. We appreciate this very helpful approach, one that gives us a sense of ownership and responsibility to our meeting. We agreed on the agenda items which we will request.
‘We grieved one more time at the unilateral decisions taken by the last General Convention of the Episcopal Church (TEC) in the USA to redefine marriage and to accept same-sex marriages (Resolutions A036 and A054). We see these latest resolutions as a clear departure from not only the accepted traditional teaching of the Anglican Communion, but also from that of the one Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church, which upholds the scriptural view of marriage between one man and one woman. (Lambeth Resolution 1:10, 1998.)’
Departure from the teaching
The Global South Primates thus do not see the problem facing the Communion as one of finding how to live with disagreement in an appropriate way. For them the decisions of TEC are a ‘departure’ from the teaching of the whole church.
Archbishop Eliud Wabukala, chairman of the GAFCON network, wrote on 24 October that ‘there is now a shared realisation that the time for dialogue is over and there needs to be a decision that will settle the future direction of the Communion and free us from being dragged down by endless controversy and confusion.’
Future in the balance
The future of the Communion is poised delicately on these two views of the presenting problem. The question the Primates will need to address at Canterbury is: how can churches committed to the authority of Scripture and to orthodox teaching on man-woman marriage relate to one another internationally when one of their number (the Episcopal Church) has repudiated that in their formal canons. On what terms might it remain in the fellowship of the Communion?
In Good Disagreement: Grace and Truth in a Divided Church, edited by Andrew Atherstone and Andrew Goddard (Lion 2015, 227pp. £6.99), published in October, three outstanding contributions by prominent New Testament scholars set out some of the biblical principles for addressing the question.
Where to draw the line
Tom Wright makes it very clear that Paul worked hard for unity in the gospel in churches which included people divided by gender, race, social class and cultures. A number of matters were secondary to his overriding concern to express reconciliation and harmony between these divided groups of humanity. But these did not include diversity in matters of sex and marriage. Some behaviours ‘belonged to the dehumanising anti-creation world of sin and death which could not be maintained in the reconciled family of the new creation’ (p.70).
Ian Paul argues that reconciliation between people is a necessary part of living out the gospel, but is not sufficient unless it is attached to and springs from reconciliation to God in the gospel (p.40).
Michael Thompson studies ‘Division and Discipline in the New Testament Church’. He concludes that false teachers lead people into serious error, away from the true liberation of following Jesus. The church is told to avoid them and if necessary drive the unrepentant away. However, every case of discipline in the NT concerns the failings of individuals who profess the faith. There are no examples of apostles excluding entire congregations. Biblical discipline excludes in order to protect and aims to restore. It is dangerous to allow spiritual cancer to spread instead of confronting a threat to the entire community. (p.60) Chris Sugden
