According to Dr. Williams, Anglicans owe it to each other to remain in conversation. He argues that it is only through conversation that authentic, committed, and meaningful community is made possible. But conversation only creates the possibility of communion; it doesn't guarantee it. Like the listening process, the danger is that we can listen ourselves to death, or be desensitized to the point that we no longer have our original convictions about what is right and wrong. That is an inherent danger in conversation, ever seeking, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.

Next month, a meeting of primates and bishops will meet as the Fourth Anglican Global South Encounter in Singapore where they will build on the ecclesiological vision of the "One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ" first shared at the 3rd "Red Sea" Encounter at El-ein-Suknah, Egypt in 2005. This 4th Encounter will explore how the communion can relate to one another in covenantal and communion autonomy with accountability in matters of faith and order and affirmation of the Anglican Covenant as the basis for intensifying the ecclesial life between churches in the Communion.

While the Covenant exhibits doubt, ambiguity and a Dostoevskian sense of tragedy with everybody remaining in conversation (a word incidentally much beloved by former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold), the Jerusalem Declaration stands both in apposition and opposition to the Covenant on many levels.

A book, Being Faithful, The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today takes a critical look at the state of the Anglican Communion and calls the church back to its historic origins but not before it takes a big stick to Western innovations with these words, "A significant number of senior leaders in the Anglican Communion have been shaped, influenced and even trapped by this culture of repudiation and innovation. They have allowed the influence of this culture to intimidate them and, in the face of this pressure, have attempted to show the relevance of Christian faith with innovations of their own."

At the first level, the Declaration is, as its title states, declarative unlike the Covenant. The Jerusalem Declaration is unambiguous in what it says and what it means.

The raison d'etre for the Jerusalem Declaration is three fold: The first is the acceptance and promotion within the provinces of the Anglican communion of a different "gospel" (cf. Galatians 1:6-8) that is contrary to the apostolic gospel. This false gospel undermines the authority of God's Word written and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the author of salvation from sin, death and judgment. Many of its proponents claim that all religions offer equal access to God and that Jesus is only a way, not the way, the truth and the life. It promotes a variety of sexual preferences and immoral behavior as a universal human right. It claims God's blessing for same-sex unions over against the biblical teaching on holy matrimony. In 2003, this false gospel led to the consecration of a bishop living in a homosexual relationship.

The second fact is the declaration by provincial bodies in the Global South that they are out of communion with bishops and churches that promote this false gospel. These declarations have resulted in a realignment whereby faithful Anglican Christians have left existing territorial parishes, dioceses and provinces in certain Western churches and become members of other dioceses and provinces, all within the Anglican Communion. These actions have also led to the appointment of new Anglican bishops set over geographic areas already occupied by other Anglican bishops. A major realignment has occurred and will continue to unfold.

The third fact is the manifest failure of the Communion Instruments to exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy. The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada, in proclaiming this false gospel, have consistently defied the 1998 Lambeth statement of biblical moral principle (Resolution 1:10). Despite numerous meetings and reports to and from the "Instruments of Unity", no effective action has been taken. Furthermore, the bishops of these unrepentant churches were welcomed to Lambeth 2008. To make matters worse, there has been a failure to honor promises of discipline, the authority of the Primates' Meeting has been undermined and the Lambeth Conference has been structured so as to avoid any hard decisions. We can only come to this devastating conclusion, "We are a Global Communion with a colonial structure".

As a result of this crisis, the fabric of the Communion has been torn in such a way that it cannot simply be patched back together. At the same time, it has brought together many Anglicans across the globe into personal and pastoral relationships in a fellowship that is faithful to biblical teaching, more representative of the demographic distribution of global Anglicanism today and stronger as an instrument of effective mission, ministry and social involvement.

The tipping point for the GAFCON Primates was the issuing of open invitations to the Lambeth Conference rather than using those invitations as a means of disciplining those perceived to have strayed from orthodoxy. They believed, with justification, that the "Instruments of Unity" have failed to exercise discipline over heterodox provinces.

The GAFCON leaders have made it clear that their fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion. With other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism can best be summed up and defined in these words: "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 Scriptures. Such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-none Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayers and the Ordinal."

The truth is the Anglican Communion has been on a ten-year journey that has been both costly and debilitating for all concerned. As a result, the Communion has certain provinces in impaired communion with others and in broken communion with the two provinces in North America.

The pleas of those who continually have cried out for Anglicans to hold to the "faith once for all delivered to the saints" have been ignored. They have shown remarkable forbearance while their leaders have been demonized and their advocates marginalized.

So the journey back to the future of orthodoxy has begun in earnest. Some differences and contrasts between the two documents are noteworthy.

First, The Jerusalem Declaration assumes a pre-existing "en Christo" (this kernel is the presence of Christ in the Christian and of the Christian in Christ, at the level both of the individual and of the community.) It is not a unity manufactured by "conversation" or looked for community leading to unity.

Secondly, the Jerusalem Declaration affirms its commitment to historic Anglican faith without qualification or equivocation. The proposed Anglican Covenant yearns for doctrinal certitude arising out of conversation, but is not predisposed to affirming such dogmatism.

Thirdly, the Covenant does not address the fundamental issues for all Anglicans in this conflict. The Jerusalem Declaration raises the issues and answers them.

Fourthly, The Covenant goes against the grain of Anglican ecclesiology (what we think the church is), while the Jerusalem Declaration has a very clear ecclesiology.

Fifthly, The Covenant is inadequate in its response to the conflict in the Anglican Communion. A number of provinces including the Episcopal Church have refused to even discuss it till 2012 and then there is no guarantee that it will sign off, and, if it does, that it will be obedient to the Covenant's demands.

Sixthly, there is little doubt that if a Covenant is passed that it will be confusing in future institutional relationships and financial obligations. The Jerusalem Declaration says that "institutional relationships" will be meaningless if the Lordship of Christ, in the Church and in mission, is not forefront and center stage in the church. Financially, it is becoming clearer that the Global South, particularly Nigeria, can take care of itself. (Nigeria was able to raise significant funding for the GAFCON conference in Jerusalem without US or UK money.)

Seventh, The Covenant does not seek to answer how it will act in a particular context, which is relevant to that context and also be faithful to the gospel if culture triumphs over Scripture. The Jerusalem Declaration is explicit that the gospel always comes first and that culture is of secondary importance.

Eighthly, the presenting issue of homosexuality in the public life of the church sees two diametrically opposing viewpoints. The Covenant advocates for the rights of gay people, while many Anglicans differ on whether and how such advocacy should be done. Provinces that already allow rites for same-sex blessings, openly non celibate homogenital priests and bishops, are anathema to the Jerusalem Declaration which states: "Throughout its history, the Church has understood the lifelong monogamous union of a man and a woman to be God's unchangeable standard" (Lambeth 1920. Resolution 66). Nothing will change. Christ points to the creation of male and female as the grounding for marriage (Matt. 19:4-6), but a same-sex relationship contravenes this. Here is the biblical and theological basis for the Bible's consistent prohibition on homosexual behavior (I Cor. 6: 9-10).

Authority is culturally transmitted, according the Covenant. Not so, says the Jerusalem Declaration. God's authority is not abstract. It is clear and binding on all humanity.

Virtueonline believes these issues are of such centrifugal importance that we invite you to read the document in full or purchase your own copy at the two links below.

You can download a copy of the book here:

http://www.gafcon.org/news/being_faithful_now_available_for_download/

It can be ordered or downloaded here:

http://www.latimertrust.org/bf.htm