The Jerusalem Statement: A Commentary
Part One - The Gospel of Grace and Biblical Authority
This is part one of a six-part series on the Anglican Jerusalem Statement of 2008.
Introduction
The Jerusalem Statement emerged from the 2008 Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) as a rallying cry for orthodox Anglicans who felt increasingly alienated from the direction of parts of the Anglican Communion, particularly regarding attitudes to biblical authority, apostolicity, and catholic unity. Born from frustration with what many saw as theological drift in Western provinces, this fourteen-point statement seeks to articulate a robustly orthodox Anglican identity rooted in Scripture, the historic creeds, and traditional Christian ethics.
The Jerusalem Statement represents more than conservative reactionism, it’s an attempt to forge a coherent theological vision for twenty-first-century Anglicanism that is defined by courage rather than capitulation to a post-Christian culture.
While critics dismiss it as American fundamentalism imported into Africa, in actuality, it is a restatement of the “faith delivered once for all to the saints” over and against an Anglican establishment that can be ideationally vacuous: who stand for nothing other than repeating certain political platitudes.
The declaration draws deeply from Anglican formularies whilst addressing contemporary controversies head-on, particularly around marriage and sexuality. Whether one agrees with its positions or not, the Jerusalem Statement has undeniably reshaped global Anglican politics, creating new networks, partnerships, and new lines of division. Understanding this document is essential for grasping the current state of global Anglicanism.
What follows is a commentary on articles 1 and 2
1. Gospel and Grace
We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because God first loved us, we love him and as believers bring forth fruits of love, ongoing repentance, lively hope and thanksgiving to God in all things.
In my mind, a good theology begins with the gospel, because the gospel is the boundary, centre, and integrating point for all theology. So I’m impressed with the centrality of the gospel in the Jerusalem Statement (see my Evangelical Theology, Five Views on the Gospel, and my gospel summary video).
The opening move of the Jerusalem Statement is to set out the gospel: salvation by grace through faith, energized by the Holy Spirit. The language echoes Ephesians 2:8-9, whilst emphasizing the transformative nature of genuine conversion. Notice the role of the Holy Spirit – often neglected – there is no gospel or transformation without the Holy Spirit. Notice too the progression: God’s prior love elicits responsive love, which produces practical fruits including repentance, hope, and gratitude. This is Calvinistic grace united with Wesleyan piety: what a combo! This isn’t cheap grace or abstract theology, it’s practical Christianity, faith that transforms lives.
The emphasis on “ongoing repentance” signals that the Christian life involves continual reorientation toward God rather than static decision-making. I love the mention of “lively hope,” it is N.T. Wright-esque, and captures the eschatological dimension of the Christian life, looking forward to Jesus’ return whilst living faithfully in the herein now. By beginning here, the Jerusalem Statement roots everything that follows in the gospel itself. Which goes to show that the Jerusalem Statement isn’t about Anglican politics, but about God’s grace, love, and hope that meets us in Jesus and is sealed by the Holy Spirit.
The Anglican faith is the gospel of God’s love and the story of our common hope!
2. Biblical Authority in the Anglican Church
We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.
Here we encounter what many consider the Statement’s most controversial yet foundational claim: Scripture contains “all things necessary for salvation” and must be read in its “plain and canonical sense.” This affirmation draws directly from Article VI of the Thirty-nine Articles, asserting Scripture’s sufficiency and clarity.
Notice the absence of the words “inerrant” and “infallible,” not because those terms are rejected (though they can be problematic), but because the issue of biblical authority is not be framed in terms of the American “Battle for the Bible” that shaped US denominations in the twentieth century. As I’ve argued here, global Christianity does not need to Americanize it’s language to maintain a high view of Holy Scripture. Otherwise, see my contribution to the book Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy.
The phrase “plain and canonical sense” attempts to navigate between wooden literalism and interpretive free-for-all, suggesting Scripture possesses an intelligible meaning accessible through a careful reading within the church’s interpretive tradition. The reference to “the church’s historic and consensual reading” acknowledges we don’t interpret Scripture in isolation but within a community of interpretation stretching across centuries.
Critics argue this masks interpretive diversity and privileges particular readings as “plain” when they are actually contested positions. True, what is “plain” can be subjective. But I would counter that core Christian doctrines emerge clearly from Scripture when read faithfully. There is room for diversity in secondary and tertiary matters – GAFCON includes numerous views about the inclusion of women in Holy Orders. But the Trinity, Jesus’s divinity, and atonement are not up for negotiation or negation. In many Anglican provinces, where Orthodoxy was made optional, it was soon mocked, and then proscribed. That is precisely what the Jerusalem Declaration seeks to address.
The five-fold emphasis on Scripture, i.e. translate, read, preach, teach, and obey, stresses Scripture’s practical role in Christian formation. This isn’t Bible-as-museum-piece but Bible-as-living-authority. The Bible is not an authority because it is a magical book, but because God the Holy Spirit speaks in it (WCF 1.10). The Jerusalem Statement stakes everything on Scripture’s veracity and authority, making this point foundational for all that follows.
In the next post, I’ll cover articles 3 and 4 in the Jerusalem Statement.
Im not against much of this statement. I would however drop the "Scripture must be read in its plain and canonical sense” bit. I think that many Christians are in fact afraid to admit to themselves (and each other) that the scriptures, (both old and new testaments) are no where near as plain as we like to claim. eg: we have talking snakes, more than a little devinely ordained genocide, and, of course, the bizzare imagery of the book of revelation. God could have made it more plain, but, alas, he didnt. Thats ok that he didnt. We should still seek and journey towards God, humbly and prayerfully, but, lets not make claims that ultimately make church devision and deconstruction more likely.
The implication from the commentary on article 2 here is that conformity on issues of human sexuality is non-negotiable because it fits into the category of having a singular permissible “plain and canonical” reading (a “plain and canonical” reading which leads ineluctably to advocating for the death penalty for homosexuals!) and is therefore necessary for salvation.
Whether this claim is valid or not, it clearly is novel, just as the demands of the original fundamentalists were for novelty rather than retrieval. The insistence on a singular flat reading of scripture (in the former case around the Genesis narratives) driven by cultural anxiety and political grasping is echoed here.
The disingenuous thing is to try to dress up radically revisionist positions (adding to what is essential for salvation) as a return to orthodoxy.