Anglican Confusion
Deep divisions within the Church of England between “liberals” and “traditionalists” came to public prominence in the debate at the Synod held at York in July, which resulted in the affirmation of the majority view that women be ordained as bishops and that a code of practice be drawn up to make special arrangements “for those who as a matter of theological conviction will not be able to receive the ministry of women as bishops or priests”. Women members were aggrieved that any concessions should be made to those unwilling to accept them as bishops. While some Evangelicals were opposed to the admission of women as bishops, the strongest opposition came from Anglo-Catholics, annoyed at a further departure from “the Catholic faith”. Catholic World News reported that some Anglican bishops had been in Rome
during the week before the Synod investigating “the possibility of leaving the Anglican communion and entering the Roman Catholic Church while preserving their Anglican identity”. Outside of Africa, professed Evangelical Anglicans have different beliefs and practices regarding the ordination of women and many tend to think of it as a secondary matter.
The “Anglican Communion” is much wider than the Church of England, and includes national Churches throughout the world which are independent of control by the English Church, yet connected through a council of bishops occasionally meeting at Lambeth and presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury. They profess the same basic faith, maintain the same hierarchical church government and practise similar liturgies. Deep divisions within and between these Churches came to a head in prospect of the July 2008 Lambeth Conference. These divisions were demonstrated by the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) held in Jerusalem in June 2008, with 1148 participants, including 291 bishops. According to the statement of this Conference, the Anglican Communion faces a crisis involving three facts: (1) the acceptance and promotion within Anglicanism of a different “gospel”, contrary to the apostolic gospel, undermining the authority of God’s written Word and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the author of salvation from sin, death and judgement; (2) the declaration of provincial bodies in the Global South that they are out of communion with bishops and Churches promoting this false gospel; (3) the manifest failure to exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy.
Describing themselves as a Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, those subscribing to the Jerusalem Declaration of GAFCON affirm their commitment to Scripture as the Word of God, to the ancient councils and creeds and to the Thirty-nine Articles as stating the doctrine they believe, and to the sacraments, liturgy and ministerial orders of Anglicanism. They reject the authority of those Churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed; they pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.
Underlying tensions were brought to a head by attitudes to homosexuality and the ordination of homosexual ministers and bishops. In Vancouver the largest congregation of the Anglican Church of Canada, of which Dr J I Packer is a member, renounced the authority of their bishop and came under the jurisdiction of a more orthodox diocese in South America when their Canadian diocese approved the blessing of same-sex unions. Archbishop Peter Jensen, Sydney, one of the leaders of this movement to unite Evangelical Anglicans worldwide in an ecclesiastical network within Anglicanism, explained at a meeting in All Souls Church, London, that this became the touchstone and trigger, the wakening call. They would not have chosen this
as the ground of their action but they consider that the preservation of the gospel is involved in taking a stand at last.
Scottish Presbyterians honour the memory of Anglicans of Reformation times, such as Bishops Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and Hooper; of noted ministers and missionaries of later days, such as Whitefield, Newton, Scott, Cecil and Martyn; and of bishops, ministers and scholars who have, throughout the centuries to the present time, contributed to the well-being of the Church at large. But we must recognise, as did John Knox and those early English Reformers who would themselves have wished the Church of England to be brought more into line with other Reformed Churches, that the Church of England was not thoroughly reformed according to the biblical principle of the Scottish Reformation – that nothing should be admitted into the doctrine, worship, discipline and government of the Church but what is authorised by the Word of God. This, together with the ejection of the Puritans and the progressive broadening of the Church into the acceptance of liberal, Anglo-Catholic, Reformed and Evangelical parties, has resulted in the present degenerate state of affairs.
We can only wish success to those endeavouring to bring Anglicanism closer to a biblical position – and to go the whole distance in that direction would effectively bring it to the position of the Reformation Church in Scotland. Yet even those adhering to the Jerusalem Declaration recognise all the ministerial orders of bishops, priests and deacons and many of them have no problem with females in these offices. They rejoice in the Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage. In England they are Erastian in practice. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England correspond in many respects with our own doctrinal position but, in spite of the earlier contentions of men like Hooper, they contain the Lutheran principle: that “the Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written” (Article 20).
It was said of John Knox’s first sermon: “Others sned the branches of the papistry, but he striketh at the root also, to destroy the whole”. We would commend to Reformed and Evangelical Anglicans, and to Calvinistic Presbyterians also, the principle summarised by William Cunningham, who concludes from the doctrine of the sufficiency and perfection of God’s written Word that “anything which is imposed upon the Church as binding by God’s authority . . . must be traced to something contained in, or fairly deducible from, Scripture. Unless Scripture proof be adduced, we are entitled at once to set aside all claim alleged upon our submission” (Historical Theology, vol 1, p 65). HMC
Victory for Persecuted Registrar
Lillian Ladele, a registrar with Islington Council in London, refused to carry out same-sex civil partnership ceremonies, on the conscientious grounds of her firmly-held biblical beliefs. As a result, her managers harassed her, discriminated against her, and threatened her with the loss of her post. With financial aid from the Christian Institute she took her case to the Central London Employment Tribunal. One report says that she “wept as she told the tribunal that her bosses ordered her to perform the ceremonies or face dismissal for gross misconduct. She said: ‘I felt harassed and victimised. I was being picked on, on a daily basis.’”
The case was decided in her favour – a very significant victory, not only for her, but also for others in a similar situation. Employment lawyers have commented that, while the case “set no binding legal precedent, it would make councils much more likely to give weight to the religious views of employees”. The tribunal stated that “gay” rights should not be allowed to “trump” the rights of those with religious beliefs, and that the behaviour of her colleagues had “the effect of violating Ms Ladele’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”. Islington Council, it also said, “placed a greater value on the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community than it placed on the rights of Ms Ladele as one holding an orthodox Christian belief”.
Homosexual activists, notorious for their vituperative discrimination against Christians, were said to be “outraged by the decision”. With characteristically-brazen hypocrisy they said that it “sanctions the right of religious people to discriminate”. In fact, the decision is a cause for thankfulness to the Most High as the hearer of prayer. “The triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment” (Job 20:5). NMR
Anonymity of Witnesses and the Death Penalty
The legal system in England and Wales has found itself in difficulty over anonymity of witnesses. A basic principle of law is that a person who is accused should know who his accusers are and the witnesses against him, and should have an opportunity to answer and cross-examine them: “It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him” (Acts 25:16).
The difficulty is that witnesses may be afraid to testify under such conditions, especially where gang crime is involved. In a murder trial in 2004, Iain Davis was convicted of a double murder committed in East London in 2002. Seven of the witnesses in the case were allowed to give their evidence
anonymously, out of fear for their lives. Following an appeal, the Law Lords have recently ruled that defendants have a right to know the identity of the witnesses, and that no conviction is to be “based solely or to a decisive extent upon the statements and testimony of anonymous witnesses”. A re-trial has been ordered for Davis, and under the present legislation he stands to be released if the crucial witnesses are not prepared to disclose their identities in open court. Some 40 other convicted murderers, in London alone, are in a similar situation, and the Crown Prosecution Service has identified a further 540 cases which may be affected by the ruling. The ruling also has implications for terrorist trials involving undercover police and MI5 officers. Emergency legislation is being rushed through Parliament to allow judges to decide when anonymous evidence may be heard.
One of the main factors which contributes to this difficulty is the lack of the death penalty in Britain. In its absence, those who are ready to murder are more powerful and more frightening than the law. The gangsters and terrorists have a more potent threat – death – than anything that the law can bring against them. The witness against a murderer may lose his life, but the murderer will not. Our rulers have brought this unbalanced situation upon us by their abolition of the death penalty, and it is high time that they awoke to the folly and sin of what they have done. God has put the sword of justice into their hands, and it is their duty to draw it against those that are guilty of murder (Rom 13:4). As long as our rulers continue in their stubborn refusal to do this, the problem of witness safety will remain. Even with the best “voice-distortion technology”, some murderers will know perfectly well who is bearing witness against them.
The sobering effect of the death penalty is movingly illustrated in a letter which was recently put up for sale. It was written by one Ralph Morris to his wife on 14 September 1706, the night before his execution in Lancaster. Here is part of it, in the original spelling: “My dear wife and children this with my love to you my dear pray make yourself as easy as you can & don’t fret to make yourself ill & I hope you will find a friend in god who will be a husband to you and a father to my poor children. I trust in heaven that all my sins are forgiven . . . Whatever you do do not turn your back on your children & in a little time I hope they will be of help to you in your old age & my dear Matty and Jenney pray be good to your mother my dear lambs & god will bless you & when you see my two brothers pray tell them to leave of drinking & bad company for it has been my ruin. O my dear I now remember your words in following Harry Knight but it is now too late . . .” There is nothing of Christ in this letter, alas, but otherwise the man is clearly awakened to the reality of what he had done.
A better example still is found in the thief on the cross, who acknowledged that he deserved the death penalty (Luke 23:41), and who found salvation at the time of his execution. Doubtless one purpose of this scriptural example is to show rulers that by executing murderers they are not necessarily consigning their souls to hell. The prospect of execution may itself be the means, under God, of awakening the murderer and causing him to flee to Christ, whose blood “cleanseth from all sin” (1 John 1:7). DWBS