No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2022
This is a response by Bishop Richard Condie, the Bishop of Tasmania and Chairman of Gafcon Australia, to the article by Bishop Keith Joseph (the Bishop of North Queensland, Australia) published in the Journal of Anglican Studies in May 2022. It engages with the nature and limits of unity in the Anglican Church before discussing the unique context of the Jerusalem Declaration and recent developments in the Anglican Church of Australia.
The Right Revd Dr Richard Condie is Bishop of Tasmania and Chair, Gafcon Australia.
2 ‘The Challenge of Gafcon to the Unity of the Anglican Communion’, Journal of Anglican Studies 20.1 (2022), pp. 3-21.
3 Accessed on 25 August 2022 from https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/oct/17/gayrights.religion. Note: The Communiqué is no longer available on the Anglican Communion website.
4 Joseph, ‘The Challenge of Gafcon’, pp. 12-14.
5 https://www.gafcon.org/about/jerusalem-statement (emphasis added).
6 Joseph, ‘The Challenge of Gafcon’, p. 14.
7 ‘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’ (Section 4 of the Jerusalem Declaration).
8 Joseph, ‘The Challenge of Gafcon’, p. 12.
9 Canons A3, A5 and C15.
10 Oaths, Affirmations, Declarations and Assents Canon 1992.
11 General Synod 18 Business Paper Motion 20.3.
12 Citing Section 2 of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia, to which all bishops must declare their assent at their consecration.
13 President’s Address to Synod, 25 June 2022, pp. 11-12.
14 The Majority Opinion, paragraph 214.
15 The Majority Opinion, paragraph 226.
16 Statement 1 affirming biblical marriage was supported by 143 votes in favour to 98 against, passing in both Houses of Laity and Clergy, but losing 10:12 in the House of Bishops. Statement 2 on Chastity was also supported 143 votes to 98, and was passed 12:11 in the House of Bishops. The motion affirming same-sex marriage was lost 95 votes to 145, which represents a consistent voting pattern, suggesting that up to 10 bishops almost certainly supported this motion.
17 General Synod 18 Business Paper – Motion 24.3.
18 For a comprehensive explanation and rebuttal of the reasoning of the Majority Opinion, see Robert Tong, Claire Smith and Mike Leite (eds.), The Line in the Sand: The Appellate Tribunal Opinion and the Future of the Anglican Church in Australia (Camperdown, NSW: Australian Church Record, 2022). The book also explores and endorses the Minority Opinion of the Appellate Tribunal.
19 Although the composition is usually seven persons, including three bishops, one of the bishops recused himself, as he was the one who promoted the liturgy for same-sex blessings at his final Synod in the Diocese of Wangaratta, shortly before his retirement, which subsequently occasioned the reference to the Appellate Tribunal.
20 In Answer to the Tribunal’s questions: ‘Does the Anglican Church of Australia have a teaching on whether persistence in sexual immorality precludes a person from salvation in Christ Jesus? Where is this teaching set out?’ The House of Bishops replied in part:
Specific teaching related to sexual immorality and salvation is found in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Ephesians 5:3-5; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Revelation 21:27; and 22:11.
Sexual immorality is as liable to the judgment of God as other sins (James 2:10). All sin requires repentance and forgiveness, with a view to following a life of obedience. Of course, one ought not to prioritise sins of immorality over and above other persistent sins, however, sexual sins have significant consequences, because they constitute a sin against the Christian’s body, which is a gift from God and in which he has taken up residence by his Holy Spirit.
Shun immorality. Every other sin which a person commits is outside their body; but the immoral person sins against their own body. Did you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. 1 Corinthians 6:18-20
21 The mechanism whereby same-sex blessings were proposed by the Diocese of Wangaratta and endorsed by the Appellate Tribunal was the application of the Canon Concerning Services 1992. The Canon allows ministers to vary authorised services or construct their own, where no authorised service exists. Yet, as section 5(3) and (4) indicate:
(3) All variations in forms of service and all forms of service used must be reverent and edifying and must not be contrary to or a departure from the doctrine of this Church.
(4) A question concerning the observance of the provisions of sub-section 5(3) may be determined by the bishop of the diocese.
23 Primates Communiqué, 2003, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/oct/17/gayrights.religion (accessed 25 August 2022, emphasis added).
24 See Tong et al., The Line in the Sand, for a helpful examination of the Opinions.
25 See Glenn Davies’s survey of the various Provinces that have adopted the solemnization of same-sex unions, having begun with same-sex blessing: ‘The Appellate Tribunal Opinion and Worldwide Anglicanism’, in Tong et al., The Line in the Sand, pp. 103-10.