The Jerusalem Statement: Part 2
Creeds and Confessions
This is part twoof a seven-part series on the Anglican Jerusalem Statement of 2008.
3. Ecumenical Councils and Historic Creeds
We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
This affirmation grounds Anglican identity in catholic Christianity’s consensual tradition. The “four Ecumenical Councils” (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon) and “three historic Creeds” (Apostles’, Nicene, Athanasian) represent Christianity’s foundational doctrinal consensus regarding the Trinity and Christology. By upholding these councils and creeds, GAFCON positions itself within the Great Tradition, claiming continuity with ancient Christianity rather than sectarian innovation.
This matters enormously: the Statement isn’t advocating a new Christianity but reaffirming ancient orthodoxy. Interestingly, this commitment to historic orthodoxy potentially bridges GAFCON with Catholic and Orthodox communions on core doctrinal matters, even whilst disagreeing on other issues.
The reference to “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” affirms the Nicene description of the church’s essential unity, holiness, universality, and apostolic foundation. There is a certain irony here as there is an assertion of the ecumenical breadth of Christian faith even while the Statement itself ferments continued divisions within Anglicanism. Still, the theological instinct here is sound: Anglicans are not inventing Christianity afresh, not innovating on doctrine, not revising or replacing historic beliefs, rather, we are receiving, preserving, and transmitting the apostolic and catholic faith.
Did you know you can study Anglican Identity, the Book of Common Prayer, and Anglican styles of Worship at Ridley College for BTh, BMin, Grad Dip, MDiv, MTh, or PhD. Both on-campus and on-line units! Otherwise, check out the FREE Ridley Certificate. Plus Ridley’s podcast and chapel talks too!
4. The Thirty-Nine Articles
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.
If article #3 affirms the Catholicity of Anglicanism, then article #4 affirms the Protestant nature of Anglicanism.
The 39 Articles are a Protestant confession of faith, rooted in the sixteenth century Reformed tradition, albeit not trying to be too Lutheran or too Calvinistic. For instance, the Articles affirm both predestination (art. 17) but also universal atonement (art. 31) - so they are paving their own way within Reformed theological currents.
Here’s the origin story of the 39 Articles.
Our current 39 Articles evolved from the 42 Articles of 1553 composed by Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer. These initial articles sought to establish a broadly Protestant identity for the Church of England, distinguishing it from both Roman Catholicism and radical Protestant movements.
After Mary I’s Catholic restoration, the Articles were annulled or not enforced. However, the Articles were revised under Elizabeth I. In 1563, the 42 Articles were reduced to 39 Articles. Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, led this revision, which aimed to create a moderate theological position between Catholic and Protestant extremes (e.g., no requirement to kneel at communion but the language of predestination became less explicitly Calvinistic).
The Articles were refined further in 1571, achieving their final form. While rooted in Reformed theology, they maintained enough breadth to accommodate diverse theological perspectives within Anglicanism, becoming a foundational document for Anglican identity worldwide.
The 39 Articles have functioned as Anglicanism’s doctrinal standard, though their authority has been variously interpreted across Anglican history and they have different levels of authority in various Anglican provinces. GAFCON’s robust affirmation contrasts sharply with many contemporary Anglicans who view the Articles as artefacts of faith but not normative for faith. The Declaration insists the Articles aren’t merely descriptive of sixteenth-century debates but prescriptive for contemporary Anglican identity.
To be honest, the 39 Articles do raise legitimate questions in terms of continued relevance: How do sixteenth-century formulations address twenty-first-century issues? Can the Articles speak authoritatively to contexts radically different from Reformation England?
GAFCON’s answer seems to be that whilst any application of the articles to today requires wisdom, the Articles’ theological framework remains sound, relevant, and translatable even now. Critics argue that this privileges one moment and one document in Anglican history which is far broader and bigger than the 39 Articles. Yet for GAFCON, without the Articles’ doctrinal anchor, “Anglicanism” becomes vacuous, meaningless, leading to a “believe whatever you like and do as you please” mentality, where the only heresy is to believe in heresy.
By acknowledging the councils, creeds, and articles, GAFCON thus affirms that Anglicanism is both Catholic and Protestant, in other words, it is Reformational Catholicism!
Postscript: After I wrote this, GAFCON released The Abuja Affirmation on 7 March. Including the words:
True communion is confessional, rather than defined by a shared history or institutional structures.
The Jerusalem Declaration, which includes the Reformation Formularies, expresses our common confession of the Biblical truth, shared faith, and communal conviction. We are in fellowship with all who assent to the Jerusalem Declaration.
However, there is, and will continue to be, an institution that calls itself the Anglican Communion, which defines communion on an institutional basis. This body has recognised that its current institutional rules have failed to maintain genuine communion and is currently exploring the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals to change its institutional rules. But these proposals are based on a commitment to “walk together to the maximum possible degree” despite fundamental disagreement on the Bible’s teaching. This cannot lead to true communion.
There are not two Communions, but two incompatible definitions of communion – one confessional, the other institutional.
The problem is that confessional unity is meant to be expressed through institutions, by “institutions” I mean visible expressions of partnership, mission, and mutual care. If we do not institute mechanisms for interacting, sharing, and supporting each other, what is the meaning of a communion? Do we just sit in our various sides of the world content with the fact that someone somewhere believes the same things I do? This sounds a little too, how can I say, “low church who has started digging to go lower,” with an inherent disinterest in church history, denominational heritage, and in organic partnerships.
True, a confessional church has an invisible unity, but that unity has to be expressed visibly!
So when the Abuja Affirmations says, “Christian unity is not based on shared human values, inherited institutional structures or a common commitment to mission. These are merely the fruit of Christian unity, not its essence.” I wanna say, no, Christ’s body is a physical body, it’s the people and steeple, not just the right ideas we are supposed to have!
I am not alleging that GAFCON’s Abuja Affirmation is guilty of ecclesiological docetism, reducing the Lord’s body to a phantom of ideals. But I do want to ask a serious question: Has anybody noticed that the Abuja Affirmation has a diminished view of the physical church and our visible bonds of unity?
While a communion must not be less than fides qua creditur (the faith that is believed), it must also include the fides quae unit (the faith that makes us one).
Thank you Mike for your reflection on the need for some institutional expression of communion, even if the unity is spiritual. I hadn't thought of it that way before.