I'll walk back my promise re an anticipated 'next post' about being Anglican - it will come soon - in order to note the momentous news coming from GAFCON.
1. GAFCON is committed to staying and not leaving. Read my lips: "We are not leaving the Anglican Communion' means 'No schism.'
Check out the GAFCON Primates' Communique here.
2. But GAFCON is also committed to not standing still and waiting for something or someone to change in respect of future Anglican Communion life. Future Anglican missional work, in and around provinces such as England, is being organised.
Check out Ruth Gledhill's analysis of the situation and interview of ++Peter Jensen here.
Now a mere mortal non-player in these global Anglican manoeuvres is a bit troubled by putting the Communique alongside the Gledhill article. (Maybe I am misunderstanding ... put me right commenters).
3. Why does the Communique not explicitly talk about the new organisation Ruth refers to and the appointment of ++Peter Jensen to the role? (Note the way the Communique lists a group of advisors below the list of Primates which gives the impression ++Peter Jensen played no role in the meeting. Was he there or was he not?)
4. What does 'We have planned for the expansion of our movement in order to touch the lives of many more Anglicans with gospel fellowship' (in the Communique) mean in actuality?
On the face it the cited sentence offers encouragement to Anglicans who are feeling a bit down about the way things are going in the Communion through these present days. But the Gledhill article implies that 'expansion of our movement' means:
- planting new Anglican (or, maybe, Anglican-like) churches alongside perfectly viable Anglican churches (as happens in a number of places in Australia and New Zealand, as well as in England);
- planting churches which are distinctive both because they will clearly conserve a traditional stance on homosexuality and because they will clearly pursue a 'headship' approach to the roles of men and women in leadership.
If so, why is the Communique not explicit in spelling out what 'gospel fellowship' means?
As for the role of Bishop Ellison (singled out in the Communique), has the Communique honestly informed the Anglican world that there are two sides to his story of involvement in a new Anglican plant outside the jurisdiction of the Church of England?
But let's be clear as I ask these questions: GAFCON is not leaving the Anglican Communion. That means that what it is offering is a mix of (a) missional leadership within the Communion that will not wait for agenda set by (say) the ABC or the ACC, (b) ways forward for Anglican life which may or may not sit comfortably within existing jurisdictions - a kind of 'workaround'.
An important question for the ABC, the ACC, TEC (noting the way that the ACNA Primate is a full member of the GAFCON Primates' Council) and any commenter here demurring at the Communique is this: Are you being left behind as the GAFCON wing swerves, dummies and chipkicks ahead of you?
20 comments:
A lot to ponder here, Peter. Congrats on being 'First with the news!' You are raising several important points in your summary. My first reaction is a heartfelt 'Thanks' that the Gafcon Primates' are NOT intending to give up on koinonia with other Anglicans. I hope to respond after careful scrutiny of your report.
Agape, Fr. Ron
Peter, this communique is one of strength and vision, as opposed to grappling with issues, trying to find unity in diversity and having endless dialogue. I wonder whether GAFCON is in fact the future of Anglicanism. If I were a progressive Anglican, I think I'd be on the back foot, possibly considering my options. GAFCON looks like the via media. Who knows GAFCON might start receiving enquiries from the Holy See.
Nick
Certainly, Nick. No such division could possibly happen in your R.C. Church. The Vatican are having enough of a job keeping Good Pope Francis in order. However, he is loved by many Anglicans.
Hi Ron and Nick
Two observations:
1. 'progressive' Anglicans are more likely to be on the back foot if the Global South movement (more Asia, Middle East than GAFCON's African predominance) joined forces with GAFCON.
2. Is GAFCON analogous to SSPX? (A breakaway within/from RCC yet one which the RCC tries to bring back into the fold).
Greetings,
Does GAFCON promote the headship model in church leadership or does it just include people who do? - I was under the impression it's chairman from Kenya supports women being ordained?
Yes good about the intention to stay within the communion. I noticed the next meeting is 2018. I would be good to have also had a statement saying they would be prepared to attend an Anglican Communion Primates meeting in the same year.... especially if also being considered 'an instrument of unity' and renewing Anglicanism from within is an objective.
Personally would I join the GAFCON movement? I think that depends upon what the Bishop of Salisbury alluded to - if the variety of scope within the current structure of the Anglican Church in my country allows the choice to attend a church which I believes upholds the central tenants of faith I do not see a need to move.
As for GAFCON being a movement itself within/alongside other Anglican churches in and of itself I don't see this as a particular issue. Within the NZ context though I can't see the benefits of new church plants that are 'anglican' being outside of the main body; given strength in numbers approach and the support in terms of function (administration) and training already in place.
Cheers
Jean
Hi Jean
As far as I know, GAFCON has no specific statements against the ordination of women; and as you rightly observe Kenya ordains women; ACNA has ordained women too.
The church plants being supported in England under the banner of AMiE appear to me to be a different matter (hence my remarks about them re 'headship'.)
I am not aware of a call for a Primates' Meeting in 2018 (I may have missed that) but 2018 is the year in which the next Lambeth Conference of all bishops might have been held, but that has now been postponed indefinitely. So there will be a certain symbolism in a GAFCON Conference being held that year (nevertheless the first GAFCON Conference was held in 2008, the second in 2013, so there is no change of numerical pattern by GAFCON to propose a conference in 2018).
Hi Peter
Thanks for the responses. Re 2018 I had just garnered from the odd article that the ABC had thought a Lambeth Conference in 2018 might be a bit difficult to achieve but planned to visit all the provinces of the communion to see if the primates were willing to agree to meet in 2018. Don't quote me on it though, may have my wires crossed.
Cheers
Jean
Time will tell :)
Time will tell :)
Mea maxima culpa; I have mixed the Global South and GAFCON crowd up assuming they were all sort of the same "big". That, in itself, makes me think that Father Ron has a point on schism, though perhaps it's just brand dilution. As for SSPX, I accept that you have a point, Peter, but my understanding is that ACAPNZ can canonically experience communion with GAFCON members, whereas Roman Catholics cannot if they attend a SSPX mass. The mass would be non-canonical, though their priests have valid orders. If I went to the SSPX parish at Whanganui and assisted at mass, it would not count.
Nick
Yet, Nick, you might be a blessing to SSPX in Whanganui!
I should clarify the word "count". As you and many of your commenters no doubt know, Roman Catholics see Sunday as the usual holy day of obligation. But, you have to attend a canonical mass. I'd be happy to visit the SSPX parish though.
Nick
Hi Nick
I must check out all the references in Scripture to canonical masses :)
Hi Peter, be sure to check the seven books that Protestants miss out (particularly Judith - that's a practical illustration of headship) . More seriously though, I'm pretty sure you have authorised services as well in the NZPB. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if it's not in the NZPB, it's not authorised, is it?
Nick
Hi Nick,
Dear Judith ... :)
We have many authorised services and they are not all in NZPB:
- there are a suite of eucharistic prayers (mostly slight revisions of those in NZPB);
- there is capacity to formulate services according to a pattern set down in NZPB; also according to another pattern called the Template (providing the prayers used conform to doctrine);
- either using a service set out in NZPB or in a service following the flexible order noted immediately above, it is authorised to use any authorised eucharistic prayer of a member church of the Anglican Communion;
- I have probably missed something!
Re Peter Jensen's attendance, this piece on Sydney Anglicans states that Glenn Davies was there, but doesn't mention Peter Jensen. I'm pretty sure it would say if Peter had been there.
http://sydneyanglicans.net/news/2018-set-for-next-gafcon
Hi Andrew
Yes, it looks as though Ruth Gledhill rang ++Peter in Sydney!
"Why does the Communique not explicitly talk about the new organisation Ruth refers to and the appointment of ++Peter Jensen to the role?"
Firstly it isn't a new organisation - FCA-UK has existed for some years. Nor does the article say otherwise.
Secondly, the Communique does talk about the organisation - it refers to it directly - FCA UK.
"Note the way the Communique lists a group of advisors below the list of Primates which gives the impression ++Peter Jensen played no role in the meeting."
Peter Jensen is the general secretary of Gafcon, not an advisor, so I don't think it gives any such impression. There is no secret about this - he has occupied this position for many years and its mentioned in plenty of documents.
"Was he there or was he not?"
I have no idea. Why does it matter?
"What does 'We have planned for the expansion of our movement in order to touch the lives of many more Anglicans with gospel fellowship' (in the Communique) mean in actuality?"
At least some of it is right there in the Communique, stuff about establishing more branches of FCA, and theological education. You may find the latter rather mundane since it is focused on the developing world.
"As for the role of Bishop Ellison (singled out in the Communique), has the Communique honestly informed the Anglican world that there are two sides to his story of involvement in a new Anglican plant outside the jurisdiction of the Church of England?"
There are actually more than two sides, probably at least a dozen sides, as there is to every issue on earth. Why is Gafcon obliged to say anything except its own side? Misrepresenting facts would be another matter, but I can"t see where the Communique does that.
"'progressive' Anglicans are more likely to be on the back foot if the Global South movement (more Asia, Middle East than GAFCON's African predominance) joined forces with GAFCON."
The Gafcon provinces are part of the Global South, and their objectives and views are much the same.
"The Gafcon provinces are part of the Global South, and their objectives and views are much the same." - MichaelA -
Then, MichaelA, can you give us the benefit of your wisdom as to what, precisely, is the difference? And, if 'their objectives and views are much the same' (in your opinion), why - in your opinion - don't they just 'join up'?
Post a Comment