GAFCON should clarify some issues
Jul 07, 2008
Letter of the day<br><br>EDITOR—I wish to comment on the statement of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) held in Jerusalem in June. I know some of the people that met in Jerusalem who happen to be some of the most committed Christians I have known.
Letter of the day
EDITOR—I wish to comment on the statement of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) held in Jerusalem in June. I know some of the people that met in Jerusalem who happen to be some of the most committed Christians I have known.
No doubt their statement will be read across the world and theological minds will write commentaries on it.
I have been happy to read the responses from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, and the Bishop of Durham, Dr. Tom Wright—the latter known for his evangelical credentials—and both accomplished theological scholars.
I wish to address only two questions that the statement raises especially with regard to the integrity of the Gospel and of the Bible.
GAFCON alludes to the “acceptance and promotion within the Anglican Communion of a different ‘gospel’ (Galatians 1: 6-8) which is contrary to the apostolic gospelâ€. It would appear, however, that the dispute or rather difference is not on the apostolic gospel, which does not change, but on the practical issue of ethics.
You cannot separate the two, but neither can you simply identify them or collapse one into the other. Even when the gospel were defined by reference to the uniqueness of Christ, which I believe it should be, the sphere of Christ’s reach in terms of his cosmic significance would still be an issue for serious theological discussion.
In other words, some of GAFCON’s statements need elucidating. The Pauline text in Galatians that is quoted referred to the so-called Judaizers who taught that the continuation of the Abrahamic rite of circumcision was a requirement for those who would receive salvation.
Paul refutes this in the light of his doctrine of justification by grace through faith.
However, in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, Paul was willing to compromise on this matter when dealing with the Jews. He had Timothy circumcised in order to avoid laying a stumbling block before Jewish believers. However he and the entire New Testament were uncompromising where some Christian heretics rejected the doctrine of the incarnation.
There is an ethical character to the current controversy within the Anglican Communion which is more complex than a presentation of the Gospel. And while such debate now is focused on sexuality, there will be and have been other candidates.
They include racism, the institution of slavery, contraception, abortion, and the position of women in church and society. The second question I wish to raise is to do with the status of the Bible and how it is to be read.
GAFCON mentions ‘the plain and canonical sense of the Bible’ and adds to this ‘the rule of faith’ gleaned from three historic creeds: the Apostolic, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian. It also mentions what it calls ‘consensual reading’ and the 39 Articles of Religion.
I won’t comment on the last two. I will raise questions about the first one—the plain sense of the Bible—which actually goes back to the Reformer Martin Luther in opposition to tradition being a final authority and to allegorical methods of scriptural interpretation.
Luther also spoke of a ‘canon within a canon’ meaning that not all biblical texts are of equal validity.
There has to be an interpretive key in light of which the Bible is understood.
In other words, the plain sense of the Bible may not be as plain as one might think it to be. For example, it is possible for people of opposed sides of an argument to quote biblical verses in support of their position.
Sometimes there may be need to understand the historical background against which some books were written or what view of the world people held at the time and their use of language.
Rev Amos Kasibante
Co-ordinating and Anglican Chaplain, University of Leicester, UK
EDITOR—I wish to comment on the statement of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) held in Jerusalem in June. I know some of the people that met in Jerusalem who happen to be some of the most committed Christians I have known.
No doubt their statement will be read across the world and theological minds will write commentaries on it.
I have been happy to read the responses from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, and the Bishop of Durham, Dr. Tom Wright—the latter known for his evangelical credentials—and both accomplished theological scholars.
I wish to address only two questions that the statement raises especially with regard to the integrity of the Gospel and of the Bible.
GAFCON alludes to the “acceptance and promotion within the Anglican Communion of a different ‘gospel’ (Galatians 1: 6-8) which is contrary to the apostolic gospelâ€. It would appear, however, that the dispute or rather difference is not on the apostolic gospel, which does not change, but on the practical issue of ethics.
You cannot separate the two, but neither can you simply identify them or collapse one into the other. Even when the gospel were defined by reference to the uniqueness of Christ, which I believe it should be, the sphere of Christ’s reach in terms of his cosmic significance would still be an issue for serious theological discussion.
In other words, some of GAFCON’s statements need elucidating. The Pauline text in Galatians that is quoted referred to the so-called Judaizers who taught that the continuation of the Abrahamic rite of circumcision was a requirement for those who would receive salvation.
Paul refutes this in the light of his doctrine of justification by grace through faith.
However, in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, Paul was willing to compromise on this matter when dealing with the Jews. He had Timothy circumcised in order to avoid laying a stumbling block before Jewish believers. However he and the entire New Testament were uncompromising where some Christian heretics rejected the doctrine of the incarnation.
There is an ethical character to the current controversy within the Anglican Communion which is more complex than a presentation of the Gospel. And while such debate now is focused on sexuality, there will be and have been other candidates.
They include racism, the institution of slavery, contraception, abortion, and the position of women in church and society. The second question I wish to raise is to do with the status of the Bible and how it is to be read.
GAFCON mentions ‘the plain and canonical sense of the Bible’ and adds to this ‘the rule of faith’ gleaned from three historic creeds: the Apostolic, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian. It also mentions what it calls ‘consensual reading’ and the 39 Articles of Religion.
I won’t comment on the last two. I will raise questions about the first one—the plain sense of the Bible—which actually goes back to the Reformer Martin Luther in opposition to tradition being a final authority and to allegorical methods of scriptural interpretation.
Luther also spoke of a ‘canon within a canon’ meaning that not all biblical texts are of equal validity.
There has to be an interpretive key in light of which the Bible is understood.
In other words, the plain sense of the Bible may not be as plain as one might think it to be. For example, it is possible for people of opposed sides of an argument to quote biblical verses in support of their position.
Sometimes there may be need to understand the historical background against which some books were written or what view of the world people held at the time and their use of language.
Rev Amos Kasibante
Co-ordinating and Anglican Chaplain, University of Leicester, UK