There’s an old theological principle that says the nature of the disease determines the nature of the remedy. So, if you think your headache is just a hangover, you’re content with 2 neurofen. If you think your headache is the result of the bricks falling on your head, you take more drastic action.

The reason why I adopt this tried and trusted picture is that we as evangelicals are not looking at just one way ahead. There are at least two, and they arise from very different conceptions of the disease that the Anglican Communion, and the Church of England itself faces. Which should we choose and why? This will, I think, determine everything else.

On the one hand, there is the way ahead implied by Lambeth, with a reliance on old remedies, notably the instruments of communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the ACC and so on. There may be various forms and various twiddles. But the twiddles, even the idea of covenant, insofar as it works through the instruments of communion, do not fundamentally alter the ways of dealing with our questions. Such variations arise from and use the existing structures, and rest, it seems to me, ultimately on the notion that the instruments of communion can provide ways of solving our problems, even if they have not done so so far. My fundamental misgiving about the covenant process is that it relies on flawed or limited mechanisms. This way forward rests on a pre-supposition about the nature of the underlying problem – that it is in principle addressable through these means. That is one way forward.

The other way forward arises from the Jerusalem Declaration. It arises from a different conception. You see, the title ‘instruments of communion’ is intriguing, isn’t it? It almost sounds as though the instruments are the means by which or from which communion and fellowship arise. Almost. It can give that impression, and that is how people sometimes behave. But the Jerusalem Declaration also dealt with fellowship issues – it is a declaration of fellowship. And it states the basis of fellowship and communion among Anglicans in terms of Anglican identity. Anglican identity is shaped by this commitment:

‘The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal’

The GAFCONeers did not, of course, invent those words. They are the words of Canon A5, and something to which any loyal Church of England priest is bound. But note how differently this sounds to the idea of the instruments of communion. The ‘instruments of communion’ terminology unfortunately sounds as though communion arises institutionally, and that questions of communion are therefore dealt with through those instruments. Anglican identity comes to seem an institutional question.

But the Jerusalem Declaration reminds us that our own canons speak in different terms, so that fellowship arises out of common confession, out of one faith. After all, that’s the basis on which Ephesians 4:5 speaks of our unity. One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Now that conception of Anglican identity brings some radical consequences. If you think Anglican fellowship arises from Scripture supremely, and in creedal and conciliar and BCP teaching which is consonant with scripture, then you weigh events very differently. You will weigh the departure from Scripture that we have seen in TEC and in Canada very differently from some-one who sees the bonds of fellowship as primarily institutional arising from, for instance, getting an invitation to Lambeth by the Archbishop of Canterbury. You will also weigh institutional irregularity such as action in another Province very differently. You may well, as the Jerusalem declaration did, value the geographical principle, but not see it as paramount, rather seeing it as something that is designed to serve the Gospel priorities the Scriptures set out and which will be displaced if it comes to contradict those scriptural imperatives of gospel witness.

If, however, you are committed to an institutional version of fellowship and identity as being paramount, institutional irregularity will be seen as correspondingly more serious. But if institutional propriety is preserved, and due deference offered to the instruments of communion, then confessional difference may seem, not unimportant, but less important.

Please note, I am not suggesting that the Jerusalem Declaration stands for Confessionalism and never institutional considerations. It does have a place for institutional matters, clearly. Nor that the instruments of communion pay no attention to confessional matters, but it is a question of priority, of which comes first, of which grounds the other. And the different set of priorities you see, frankly, from Lambeth and from Jerusalem tell you a lot about why there are such differing views of the disease afflicting the communion.

Which way forward should one take? To press for confessional or institutional fellowship? As one looks at that, you realise you are talking about very different conceptions of Anglican identity. This sounds like an abstract question. It is not. It is fundamental, because it will determine what one does and how one reacts to some of the things we see being done to our brothers and sisters in Christ in the United States and Canada. Do you see them as naughty people who should get in line institutionally or go? Or do you see them as victims for the Gospel’s sake? Or both? And if both, which matters more for you?

To my mind GAFCON has offered the correct account of Anglican identity, for three reasons, scripture, history and realism. Scripture, first. Any account of denominational identity, if it is to reflect a Christian identity, must be consistent with the Scriptures. Those Scriptures tell us how critical obedience to them is, how defecting from the Word of God is the primal sin of Genesis 3, and accordingly, an account of denominational identity that, however well-intentioned, does not in practice treat disobedience to Scripture as being as fundamental as Scripture itself does, must be rejected. For my money, an account of Anglican identity that runs through the instruments of communion has, I regret to say, been show to do just that.

History next: my understanding of the establishment of the Church of England, and the daughter or sibling churches around the world that relate to her, is precisely that which Canon A5 tries to express. This is the historical motherlode. As such, what would even an orthodox covenant add to that?

Lastly, realism: in the TEC we have a confessional grouping. It is obvious Katherine Jefferts-Schori is a person of strong and passionate conviction. She and her colleagues have a faith. She said over the summer with respect to the sexual ethical questions that beset us – ‘It’s what the Church is today. It is inclusive - even those who don’t agree with the message, it includes them too.’ Now that’s a faith statement. The thing is, as Bishop Michael Nazir Ali has said repeatedly and courageously, it’s not the same faith as the faith expressed in the Jerusalem Declaration. And this creates the absurdity that we see post-Lambeth. GAFCONeers have their faith, the TEC leaders have theirs, both groups are quite clear and sincere that the other’s position is wrong and fundamentally and seriously so – why else would Katherine Jefferts-Schori have taken the legal actions she has if this wasn’t so? And that means that TEC cannot as a matter of its own principles be committed to the institutional, instruments of communion, route to ground Anglican fellowship. If they did think in those terms, then they would have behaved differently, don’t you think? Nor do GAFCON leaders think the instruments of communion constitute the way forward, for the very simple reason they feel they have failed them for a period of more than a decade. Realistically, how could advocates of the instruments provide a way forward when the two other parties agree at least on this, that the instruments of communion do not diagnose the disease correctly? Is that not a plausible explanation for why treatment based on the instruments of communion has failed so clearly for so long? That it is mistaken about the depth and nature of the disease?

The nature of the disease determines the nature of the remedy. I think the first step on the way forward is to acknowledge what constitutes our Anglican identity. From that the rest follows.

Dr Michael Ovey is principal of Oak Hill Theological College

-------------------------------------------------------
To read the other speeches, click the name:
Perkins / Sinclair / Nazir-Ali / Sugden / The Debate.