The Jerusalem Statement: Part 6
Church Authority and the Return of Jesus
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.
These posts constitute my exposition of the main affirmations in the statement.
13. Rejecting Unorthodox Authority
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.
This is the Declaration’s most assertive and salient point: “We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed.” This isn’t merely a disagreement but is a formal rejection of any ecclesiastical authority, from any province, even that of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The grounds of the rejection is that some have “denied the orthodox faith” which suggests apostasy, not merely error. “In word or deed” catches both theological innovation (word) and ethical practice (deed), presumably including blessing same-sex unions or ordaining practicing homosexuals.
This subject represents the essence of the current ecclesial rupture: GAFCON no longer recognizes certain Anglican leaders’ authority, requirings the establishment of alternative structures, and creating new avenues of communion. Critics view this action as schismatic. GAFCON leaders would reply that it’s necessary when official structures abandon historical orthodoxy.
The practical result is parallel Anglican structures with GAFCON-aligned provinces functioning independently from, and sometimes in direct competition with, established Anglican Communion structures in the same geographic regions - esp. in the USA vis-a-vis TEC and the ACNA.
The reality is that 80% of the global Anglican Communion would place itself in fellowship with GAFCON rather than with the Archbishop of Canterbury if push came to shove.
The follow-up: “We pray for them and call on them to repent” adopts a prophetic disposition, calling wayward leaders back to orthodoxy.
I am a bit ambivalent. Athanasius did not “split” from the ancient church even when semi-Arians were in the ascendency. On the contrary, he stayed, and fought, and fought, and fought, and never lived to see the final victory.
I wonder if we evangelical and orthodox leaders should play the long-game within global Anglicanism rather than hive off and do their own thing. I understand that in some places, like the USA, that was not possible. But I wonder if the split in other places, like New Zealand, was perhaps needless and premature.
Come study with me at Ridley College for BTh, BMin, Grad Dip, MDiv, MTh, or PhD. We have a vibrant campus life, high-quality online degrees, and one of the best PhD programs in the world in divinity studies. In addition, there is also the FREE Ridley Certificate. Check out Ridley’s podcast and chapel talks too!
14. Eschatological Hope and Spirit-Empowered Growth
We rejoice at the prospect of Jesus’ coming again in glory, and while we await this final event of history, we praise him for the way he builds up his church through his Spirit by miraculously changing lives.
The Declaration concludes by directing attention to Christ’s return, the Christian’s ultimate hope. The phrase “Jesus’ coming again in glory” echoes the Nicene Creed’s eschatological affirmation, reminding believers that history has a goal: Christ’s parousia which establishes God’s kingdom on earth as it is in heaven.
The reference to “miracles” affirms God’s ongoing activity in the world—GAFCON’s constituency includes many charismatic and Pentecostal Anglicans for whom spiritual gifts and miraculous signs are normal features of Christian experience. The focus on “changing lives” returns to experiential, transformative Christianity; the gospel isn’t merely believed intellectually, but experienced personally through Spirit-wrought conversion and sanctification.
This eschatological framework relativizes present conflicts in a sense, in that however intense the current Anglican struggles may be, they are temporary. Christ is building his church, and he will return to put all things to right. This provides both encouragement (God’s purposes will prevail) and urgency (we must be faithful until he comes). It’s a fittingly evangelical conclusion to a robustly evangelical declaration.
Conclusion
Perhaps the Declaration’s ultimate significance lies not in institutional unity but in maintaining theological clarity amidst confusion, providing conservative Anglicans across the globe with a standard around which to rally when official structures seem theologically adrift.
In that sense, the Jerusalem Statement functions less as an ecumenical bridge and more as a theological boundary-marker, declaring where faithful Anglicanism stands, come what may. That’s simultaneously its strength and its limitation. The Jerusalem Declaration unites those who embrace it whilst dividing the communion at large. Whether that trade-off represents a faithful witness or costly failure of leadership depends on where one stands regarding the very issues the Declaration addresses so forcefully.
The declaration is interesting and it is great for all of us that your broke it down into bite-size pieces.
What do I notice here at a macro-level? Total lack of humility. The declaration (like so many others - I get it) isn't interested in anything else than drawing lines. It is implied (or explicit in some places) that they are right and everyone else who isn't exactly in line with them are wrong. There is a lack of humility. They think they are interpreting Scripture and history perfectly and no one else is - except those who agree with them.
Sad times.
when you write that 80% of the global Anglican communion with align with GAFCON, i can't help but think about this: "Thus, the story of early Christianity was not an innocent and pure church constantly rinsing out the dirt of heresy, but something more like a horse race and one horse eventually one.
However, the horse that won, won for a reason, and it had little to do with imperial sponsorship. To be honest, I think the real reason why the orthodox won and these lost Christianities lost out is because the “other” Christianities just weren't that attractive to the ordinary Christian men and women of the Graeco-Roman world.
For many, the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas was not as inspiring as the Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew. Who would want to face persecution for faith in Jesus the dispenser of esoteric wisdom or run the gauntlet of imprisonment for owning a copy of the Gospel of Philip? To be honest, the best way to describe the victory of orthodoxy is not through a top-down power-game, but more like some annoying git getting voted off the island. The majority rules."