The Final Statement and Jerusalem Declaration (I give the parts of most practical impact) has a number of consequences.
The first is that historians know that John Henry Newman interpreted the Thirty-nine Articles to invert their meaning beyond their obvious Protestant intent. The Church of England demotion of these Articles was not simply to satisfy a liberal consensus but to include Anglo-Catholic sentiment. GAFCON shows it is Protestant. It is not the case that even traditionalist Anglo-Catholics read the Bible in its plain sense. So the likely outcome is that the traditionalist Anglo-Catholics do split from the GAFCON movement in their continuing road of being on the fringe of Anglicanism. Plus GAFCON recognises four Ecumenical Councils when there were seven.
We shall see what happens after Lambeth 2008, but some will look to the Pope for some sort of solution. The Pope may regard GAFCON as so obviously Protestant that Anglo-Catholic traditionalists are left without a home.
There is such a difference between the Archbishop of Canterbury's approach (as I have recorded it, surely the most relevant speech for Lambeth 2008) and that of GAFCON. His is the language (and rather verbose: he could have said the same in half the words) of Gospel as gift, of persons as bishops and communities in interaction and interrelationship, of giving and receiving (an economy - it is gift-exchange theology that I draw from), and that of the mother Church. Are they compatible? Not really, because a Council of Primates would have to include all Primates not just some, and then all bishops, and this raises the question of synodical governance. GAFCON is extreme episcopacy in action, it seems, and on a Protestant believers' fellowship principle. GAFCON has replaced Instruments with Instrument, and includes declarations of orthodoxy that should be in the hands of bishops. As I suggest, the Archbishop talks conservation but fails to develop a theology of bishops and innovation. The Church is entitled to get all its bishops together in Council and make changes; it is allowed to innovate even if innovation is done on the basis of some adaptation of a past principle. Some would say that the doctrine of the Trinity was an innovation, as it is not in the Bible, but would be deemed compatible with early developments as shown in later texts of the New Testament and its development.
Clearly the Archbishop's approach is more organic and bodily; the GAFCON approach is about beliefs and all believers.
Also excluded are unusual and yet outwardly doctrinal movements like Radical Orthodoxy. Also excluded would be an earlier narrative-detail Rowan Williams, though recently he has been pushing history further than it can be pushed (even on his own admission).
Most crucially, however, is the division with other Evangelicals. GAFCON have to get the likes of Mouneer Anis and similar on board. They have rejected GAFCON so far. GAFCON also has to attract a critical mass of those who would be deemed Open Evangelical - more Evangelical or Open. Its declarations of orthodoxy cut a line through Open Evangelicalism: it does not include, for example, the post-Evangelicals. If this fails, then the GAFCON movement will fail and the Primates' Council will be nothing more than a pressure group. The irony is, the more GAFCON pushes for Evangelicals to come on board, the more it could split them. Many Open Evangelicals are committed to biblical hermeneutics and far from plain readings of the Bible, and simply will not sign up to such prescription - when others will.
It is a rocky road ahead: of likely splits. As said often, the oversight of selective literalist Primates will lead to GAFCON dividing, the Global South dividing, and Open Evangelicals dividing. Also Lambeth 2008 and the Instruments may be damaged, as some Anglicans look South to a believers' fellowship and others look West still to a mother Church.
A view from the gallery - http://changingattitude.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/GS-A-View-From-the-Gallery-75x42.jpg 75w" sizes="(max-width: 299px) 100vw, 299px" /> When I was a ...