Graham Kings on Fulcrum has posted a BBC interview of +Tom Wright. One of the points +Tom makes is that if leadership in the Communion is going to be validated by the proposed Primates Council on the basis of adherence to the Jerusalem Declaration (published within the GAFCON Final Statement) then he is not going to have a bar of it, and many evangelical English bishops are troubled by this proposal. So am I.
Pertinent statements in the Jerusalem Declaration are:
"In light of the above, we agree to chart a way forward together that promotes and protects the biblical gospel and mission to the world, solemnly declaring the following tenets of orthodoxy which underpin our Anglican identity."
"2. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading."
"We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration."
"We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord."
The JD thus means that if I or you or +Tom Wright have a different understanding of the interpretation of Scripture than the one given above, which I noted in a previous post does not even mention the crucial word 'interpretation', WE ARE OUT!
The JD also means that if I or you or +Tom Wright think that there is more to orders and jurisdiction than 'upholding orthodoxy' (such as historical continuity with historic Anglicanism and just and true authority related to properly conducted Synods and General Synods), WE ARE OUT.
The JD means that if I or you or +Tom Wright think that X, Y, and Z are 'orthodox' by classical Anglican standards, though they fail the JD, it don't matter: THEY ARE OUT.
I would like to think that the JD is more of a guideline than an immutable standard of orthodoxy!
PS: Blogging holiday this weekend
Friday, July 4, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
If you read one thing before Lambeth, read this
In a previous post I made minor mention of a lecture by Gregory Cameron, Deputy Secretary General of the Anglican Communion. With some encouragement I want to give it greater prominence, grateful to Ruth Gledhill for the initial hat-tip towards its existence.
Here a a couple of sample paragraphs:
"But the real strength of the ties between the Churches of Britain and Ireland and the Episcopal Church and all those Churches which derive from them lie in the very real personal and continuing bonds of study, friendship, identity, and mutual discipleship which still sustain the life of the Communion. It can still happen that an English emigré will be elected to a bishopric in Canada or in Africa; that Canadians can be elected in New Zealand and New Zealanders in Australia. Even members of the Church in Wales can find themselves appointed to all sorts of bishoprics within the Church of England. I really don't believe that this could happen if there wasn't a very real sense that people felt that essentially Anglicans from all over the world were members of the same Church."
And:
"It should not be surprising therefore to discover that the twenty-first century has brought a growing impatience with the cultural and financial dominance of the NATO aspects of Communion life, and with it, a growing critique of the Churches of the West. Not only are we in the West shrinking in numbers unlike the growing Churches of the South; for many critics, the Churches of the West are losing a sense of their identity as they get lulled into the liberalism and relativism which are presumed to be the hallmarks of the modern Western society.
For many in the life of the Communion, therefore, it is high time that the Compass Rose swung away from the West and towards the South. A sign of this growing confidence can be seen in the establishment of the “Global South” as an Anglican Communion network. The network evolved from a series of “South to South Encounters” organised from 1994 onwards to empower the Anglican Churches of the developing nations in their mission and life. By the time of the Third South to South Encounter held in Cairo in 2005, the Anglican Communion had been hit by the crisis following the election of Bishop Gene Robinson in New Hampshire, and growing controversy about the Blessing of Same Sex Unions. These developments have catalysed the Global South into the powerful lobby that it is today, as they have articulated a clearer and clearer sense that they are the authentic heirs of the Anglican tradition, and upon whom the mantle falls to call the erring Churches of the West to a renewed faithfulness."
Make a coffee, crank up the computer, and absorb it all!
Here a a couple of sample paragraphs:
"But the real strength of the ties between the Churches of Britain and Ireland and the Episcopal Church and all those Churches which derive from them lie in the very real personal and continuing bonds of study, friendship, identity, and mutual discipleship which still sustain the life of the Communion. It can still happen that an English emigré will be elected to a bishopric in Canada or in Africa; that Canadians can be elected in New Zealand and New Zealanders in Australia. Even members of the Church in Wales can find themselves appointed to all sorts of bishoprics within the Church of England. I really don't believe that this could happen if there wasn't a very real sense that people felt that essentially Anglicans from all over the world were members of the same Church."
And:
"It should not be surprising therefore to discover that the twenty-first century has brought a growing impatience with the cultural and financial dominance of the NATO aspects of Communion life, and with it, a growing critique of the Churches of the West. Not only are we in the West shrinking in numbers unlike the growing Churches of the South; for many critics, the Churches of the West are losing a sense of their identity as they get lulled into the liberalism and relativism which are presumed to be the hallmarks of the modern Western society.
For many in the life of the Communion, therefore, it is high time that the Compass Rose swung away from the West and towards the South. A sign of this growing confidence can be seen in the establishment of the “Global South” as an Anglican Communion network. The network evolved from a series of “South to South Encounters” organised from 1994 onwards to empower the Anglican Churches of the developing nations in their mission and life. By the time of the Third South to South Encounter held in Cairo in 2005, the Anglican Communion had been hit by the crisis following the election of Bishop Gene Robinson in New Hampshire, and growing controversy about the Blessing of Same Sex Unions. These developments have catalysed the Global South into the powerful lobby that it is today, as they have articulated a clearer and clearer sense that they are the authentic heirs of the Anglican tradition, and upon whom the mantle falls to call the erring Churches of the West to a renewed faithfulness."
Make a coffee, crank up the computer, and absorb it all!
NZ Anglican Church guilty as charged?
Chris Sugden makes an interesting claim about the church to which I belong. I choose these words carefully: I find it difficult to refute the claim, much as I wish I could do so. My difficulty is this: there are 'facts on the ground' in our church, whether or not there has been some 'militant tendency' deliberately orchestrating them. I personally do not think there has been deliberate orchestration, but I am aware that others, closer to where these facts on the ground lie, think otherwise.
Writing in the Guardian, this is what Chris had to say:
For five years, the Episcopal church in US, the Anglican church of Canada, and elements of the Church of England and church in New Zealand have acted precisely like the student unions of the 1970s and Militant tendency in putting facts on the ground and defying the authorities to do anything about it. Some bishops and others have been presenting a different Christian gospel, expressed in disobedience to the teaching of the Bible, and continue to persecute and harass those who resist and object.
If the current dispute is merely a matter of different perspectives and emphases, as the Archbishop of Canterbury suggests, why are the bishops who are promoting this different gospel driving people out of their churches and removing licences from priests such as Dr Packer?
Gafcon became necessary following the persistent failure of the current authorities in the Anglican Communion to do anything about this deliberate flouting of Christian teaching and decisions of the whole Anglican Communion and its leadership.
What would be an ideal response of the Archbishop of Canterbury? The Gafcon pilgrimage was about relationships above all else. The pilgrims came to meet with God, through prayer and worship, through study of his word, and pilgrimage to recall his mighty acts of redemption in history. They came to meet with each other in fellowship, Bible discussion, meals, and pilgrimage together. One presiding bishop of a dispersed Anglican group in America, the Reformed Episcopal Synod, said he now had a family.
An ideal response of the archbishop would be to focus on relationships: to meet with the primates' council of Gafcon on neutral territory: not at the Lambeth conference, which is already a compromised gathering since those who initiated this crisis, the consecrators of Gene Robinson, will be present, and since the issues are fundamental questions about the authority of scripture in the church.
Written responses from afar raising issues of legitimacy and details of constitution-making have more in common with Yes Minister than godly dialogue in the church of Christ. Gafcon is a Primates' council, designed to bring order. It is also a movement. Movements begin with vision statements such as Tracts for the Times for the Anglo-Catholic movement, or clear bold action such as the Evangelical Movement for Social Reform under the Clapham Sect, not with detailed governance procedures.
The primates of the Anglican churches of Nigeria, West Africa, Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda (six out of 12 African provinces in Africa) and the Southern Cone, churches of over 40 million members out of 55 million churchgoing Anglicans worldwide, have decided that there is a way forward within the Anglican church that can bring order out of chaos and which does not involve a split. As elected leaders of their churches they are hardly unrepresentative. The whole provincial governance of Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Nigeria took this decision as provinces at Jerusalem to support the Jerusalem declaration and statement. Their solution is not a church within a church, since that would entail drawing the lines more tightly than the church does.
The Jerusalem declaration and statement restates what the Anglican church has always affirmed. Its importance for Anglicans is summed up by the many who said that Gafcon Jerusalem 2008 was one of the most significant weeks of their lives, the most fulfilling Anglican Conference they had attended, and where they discovered the reality of the global Anglican fellowship, united in seeking to live in obedience to the Bible.
Writing in the Guardian, this is what Chris had to say:
For five years, the Episcopal church in US, the Anglican church of Canada, and elements of the Church of England and church in New Zealand have acted precisely like the student unions of the 1970s and Militant tendency in putting facts on the ground and defying the authorities to do anything about it. Some bishops and others have been presenting a different Christian gospel, expressed in disobedience to the teaching of the Bible, and continue to persecute and harass those who resist and object.
If the current dispute is merely a matter of different perspectives and emphases, as the Archbishop of Canterbury suggests, why are the bishops who are promoting this different gospel driving people out of their churches and removing licences from priests such as Dr Packer?
Gafcon became necessary following the persistent failure of the current authorities in the Anglican Communion to do anything about this deliberate flouting of Christian teaching and decisions of the whole Anglican Communion and its leadership.
What would be an ideal response of the Archbishop of Canterbury? The Gafcon pilgrimage was about relationships above all else. The pilgrims came to meet with God, through prayer and worship, through study of his word, and pilgrimage to recall his mighty acts of redemption in history. They came to meet with each other in fellowship, Bible discussion, meals, and pilgrimage together. One presiding bishop of a dispersed Anglican group in America, the Reformed Episcopal Synod, said he now had a family.
An ideal response of the archbishop would be to focus on relationships: to meet with the primates' council of Gafcon on neutral territory: not at the Lambeth conference, which is already a compromised gathering since those who initiated this crisis, the consecrators of Gene Robinson, will be present, and since the issues are fundamental questions about the authority of scripture in the church.
Written responses from afar raising issues of legitimacy and details of constitution-making have more in common with Yes Minister than godly dialogue in the church of Christ. Gafcon is a Primates' council, designed to bring order. It is also a movement. Movements begin with vision statements such as Tracts for the Times for the Anglo-Catholic movement, or clear bold action such as the Evangelical Movement for Social Reform under the Clapham Sect, not with detailed governance procedures.
The primates of the Anglican churches of Nigeria, West Africa, Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda (six out of 12 African provinces in Africa) and the Southern Cone, churches of over 40 million members out of 55 million churchgoing Anglicans worldwide, have decided that there is a way forward within the Anglican church that can bring order out of chaos and which does not involve a split. As elected leaders of their churches they are hardly unrepresentative. The whole provincial governance of Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Nigeria took this decision as provinces at Jerusalem to support the Jerusalem declaration and statement. Their solution is not a church within a church, since that would entail drawing the lines more tightly than the church does.
The Jerusalem declaration and statement restates what the Anglican church has always affirmed. Its importance for Anglicans is summed up by the many who said that Gafcon Jerusalem 2008 was one of the most significant weeks of their lives, the most fulfilling Anglican Conference they had attended, and where they discovered the reality of the global Anglican fellowship, united in seeking to live in obedience to the Bible.
1 John 2, the Anglican Communion and secession
In days when much is in the air about schism, departure threatened of English 'rebel' clergy (no, wait, the Anglo-Catholics will never leave because of their catholic doctrine ... no, wait, the evangelicals will never leave because of their power-crazed ambitions to takeover the CofE ... confused?), it is interesting to turn to 1 John 2, its second part, and consider the response there to the challenge posed by secessionists from the Johannine community:
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." (verse 19).
Who are the 'they'? Verses 22-23 imply 'they' denied the truth, in particular 'that Jesus is the Christ'; also 'This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.'
The crucial issue, pun intended, was Christ; the doctrinal issue was christological. The rupture ripped open around Jesus and whether he was the Christ or not - with 'the Christ' including, in that lovely Johannine way, the understanding of a specific and special relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son.
Now it misreads the epistle at this point to conclude that John provides justification for orthodox Christians leaving the church in a schismatic manner. (There may be justification for that, but it does not lie here). Rather John explains, with more than a hint of sadness, that the continuity of the community has been disrupted with a certain inevitability once christological differenc had entered into the minds of the brothers and sisters.
Nevertheless much is relevant here to current issues in the Anglican Communion, and to what is being observed within the Church of England in these postGAFCON and preSynod-on-woman-bishops days. If an 'antichrist' spirit is present in the church, if basic christology is denied, if Jesus Christ is derided, disregarded or diminished, there is no surprise if division occurs in the church, whether formal, informal, or manifest in breakdown of relationships between individuals or groupings (dioceses, provinces) within the church.
GAFCON's final statement rightly noted 'another gospel' as reason for forming a fellowship of confessing Anglicans - let the arguments really begin as to whether another gospel is being preached within the Anglican Communion (i.e. TEC come forth and justify 'your gospel'), if there is but one gospel in our midst, let that become clear, and the fellowship will melt back into the life of the Communion itself.
Archbishop Rowan Williams in his response rightly noted, "Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion". If there is no need for the new fellowship then a thoroughgoing shared christology is precisely the reason for it. Archbishop Rowan knows his 1 John 2:19-23!
The question remains whether Archbishop Rowan is speaking accurately at this point of the state of the Communion. Even someone such as myself who attempts to take a broad-ish view of what 'the gospel' is, and how we might properly speak of who Christ is and what he has done for us - who can see, for example, the gospel present in the life of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, as well as in Pentecostal and Protestant churches, and in a large swathe of the Anglican Communion with its rainbow of ecclesiologies - wonders whether all TEC and Canadian bishops, given some pronouncements they have made in public statements, published books and the like, are absolutely convicted of 'the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God'.
Should Archbishop Rowan be wrong on this point, then 1 John 2 implies justification for wondering about secession within our Communion, for at least describing some parts of it as 'walking apart' from other parts, if not for forming a distinctive fellowship in our midst, and even for formalising some discontinuity of common life through the establishment of a new North American province.
A final point: herein lies reason and cause for bishops TO ATTEND LAMBETH. Despite the criticism of the 'indaba' groups for discussion and conversations, and the criticism of a lack of intention to have resolutions, Lambeth is opportunity for those sceptical of the christology of others to personally, face-to-face investigate whether or not "Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion." Let Lambeth nail this matter at least!
If there is not dispute, then we have reason to stay together as we continue to work on our differences re sexuality. If there is dispute, then we have reason to walk apart as there is no fellowship effective for gospel mission when there is no agreement over who Christ is.
Bonus for those who have read to here: Gregory Cameron has delivered a superb lecture on the Anglican Communion, its history, and reason for all to commit to its future. Read it here.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." (verse 19).
Who are the 'they'? Verses 22-23 imply 'they' denied the truth, in particular 'that Jesus is the Christ'; also 'This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.'
The crucial issue, pun intended, was Christ; the doctrinal issue was christological. The rupture ripped open around Jesus and whether he was the Christ or not - with 'the Christ' including, in that lovely Johannine way, the understanding of a specific and special relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son.
Now it misreads the epistle at this point to conclude that John provides justification for orthodox Christians leaving the church in a schismatic manner. (There may be justification for that, but it does not lie here). Rather John explains, with more than a hint of sadness, that the continuity of the community has been disrupted with a certain inevitability once christological differenc had entered into the minds of the brothers and sisters.
Nevertheless much is relevant here to current issues in the Anglican Communion, and to what is being observed within the Church of England in these postGAFCON and preSynod-on-woman-bishops days. If an 'antichrist' spirit is present in the church, if basic christology is denied, if Jesus Christ is derided, disregarded or diminished, there is no surprise if division occurs in the church, whether formal, informal, or manifest in breakdown of relationships between individuals or groupings (dioceses, provinces) within the church.
GAFCON's final statement rightly noted 'another gospel' as reason for forming a fellowship of confessing Anglicans - let the arguments really begin as to whether another gospel is being preached within the Anglican Communion (i.e. TEC come forth and justify 'your gospel'), if there is but one gospel in our midst, let that become clear, and the fellowship will melt back into the life of the Communion itself.
Archbishop Rowan Williams in his response rightly noted, "Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion". If there is no need for the new fellowship then a thoroughgoing shared christology is precisely the reason for it. Archbishop Rowan knows his 1 John 2:19-23!
The question remains whether Archbishop Rowan is speaking accurately at this point of the state of the Communion. Even someone such as myself who attempts to take a broad-ish view of what 'the gospel' is, and how we might properly speak of who Christ is and what he has done for us - who can see, for example, the gospel present in the life of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, as well as in Pentecostal and Protestant churches, and in a large swathe of the Anglican Communion with its rainbow of ecclesiologies - wonders whether all TEC and Canadian bishops, given some pronouncements they have made in public statements, published books and the like, are absolutely convicted of 'the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God'.
Should Archbishop Rowan be wrong on this point, then 1 John 2 implies justification for wondering about secession within our Communion, for at least describing some parts of it as 'walking apart' from other parts, if not for forming a distinctive fellowship in our midst, and even for formalising some discontinuity of common life through the establishment of a new North American province.
A final point: herein lies reason and cause for bishops TO ATTEND LAMBETH. Despite the criticism of the 'indaba' groups for discussion and conversations, and the criticism of a lack of intention to have resolutions, Lambeth is opportunity for those sceptical of the christology of others to personally, face-to-face investigate whether or not "Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion." Let Lambeth nail this matter at least!
If there is not dispute, then we have reason to stay together as we continue to work on our differences re sexuality. If there is dispute, then we have reason to walk apart as there is no fellowship effective for gospel mission when there is no agreement over who Christ is.
Bonus for those who have read to here: Gregory Cameron has delivered a superb lecture on the Anglican Communion, its history, and reason for all to commit to its future. Read it here.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Misunderstanding Militant Tendencies in the Anglican Communion
Reactions flow fast and furious across the internet to GAFCON's final statement and ++Williams' and ++Schori's reactions.
Here be utter execrableness. There be thoughtfulness. And, surprisingly for the journalist concerned, over here is a reasonably agreeable piece.
Take the second of the three articles noted above. Its entitled 'Anglicanism's militant tendency must be resisted' and its by Bishop Tom Butler, Bishop of Southwark. A fair point is made: when an ultra-extreme organisation gets a foothold on power within a larger organisation it can become the tail wagging the dog, as the Militant Tendency once did within the British Labour Party with savage consequences for its electoral misfortunes through the Thatcher and Major era. The recent success of the BLP is founded on ejecting the Militant Tendency and replacing it with the Blair New Labour movement. (How they will miss Blair at the next election!!). Butler sees GAFCON, via some of its 'extreme' clauses in its final statement, as demonstrating 'militant tendency' character. But this is, I suggest, a misunderstanding on Butler's part. Its an excusable misunderstanding because Butler has had recent experience of 'militant tendency' evangelicalism in his diocese, which, notably, was resisted by other evangelicals (he mentions this in the article).
Nevertheless, it is a misunderstanding of GAFCON, and it reflects a lack of the very 'thoughtfulness' which Butler espouses! A truer understanding of GAFCON would acknowledge that it is a broader party within Anglicanism than a 'militant tendency' (that is, there is a 'militant tendency' within its ranks, but that is not the whole). Its a broader party, for instance, because it includes Anglicans who are simply bewildered and hurt by the oppressive power of liberalism which in its own 'militant tendency' manner has taken control of parts of the Communion: these bewildered Anglicans have no wish to takeover the Communion but have a keen desire to know the Communion is a 'safe' place for them. Its a broader party because it includes Anglicans from places as diverse as Nigeria and Sydney who are utterly open and transparent about the particular approach to mission and ecclesiology to which they are committed. Its also a broader party because it represents a large group of Anglicans who have no vision for gaining control of the Communion (or parts such as the Church of England) but have a great vision for a restoration of the Communion along theological lines consistent and coherent with foundational Anglican and Scripturally orthodox theology. Anglicans, for instance, who would love to find Archbishop Rowan Williams giving a stronger leadership towards such a restoration and into whose heads the thoughts of 'deposing' him have never entered.
What is missing from a number of comments and opinions being expressed from a liberal perspective is any appreciation of GAFCON as a movement of last resort and of late reaction to the power plays of liberal tendencies in the Anglican Communion. With very rare exceptions you will not find a liberal Anglican saying anything like the following, 'Perhaps we have been wrong to push so hard to be a church so relevant to the modern world that we have had to jettison so much theological baggage from our foundations in Scripture and the BCP, 39A, and the Ordinal. And, maybe we should have checked from time to time whether there are limits to diversity, boundaries around Anglican thinking which are more like classic Anglican theology and less like the manifesto of the American Democratic Party or the British/New Zealand Labour Parties.'
Yes, hell could freeze over, and evolution recycle its way back to the dinosaurs before you will find the likes of Desmond Tutu or John Spong acknowledging any contribution at all to GAFCON and its final statement.
UPDATE: John Richardson has done us all a great favour by blogging directly from the important PostGAFCON meeting in All Souls Langham Place, 1 July 2008.
Here be utter execrableness. There be thoughtfulness. And, surprisingly for the journalist concerned, over here is a reasonably agreeable piece.
Take the second of the three articles noted above. Its entitled 'Anglicanism's militant tendency must be resisted' and its by Bishop Tom Butler, Bishop of Southwark. A fair point is made: when an ultra-extreme organisation gets a foothold on power within a larger organisation it can become the tail wagging the dog, as the Militant Tendency once did within the British Labour Party with savage consequences for its electoral misfortunes through the Thatcher and Major era. The recent success of the BLP is founded on ejecting the Militant Tendency and replacing it with the Blair New Labour movement. (How they will miss Blair at the next election!!). Butler sees GAFCON, via some of its 'extreme' clauses in its final statement, as demonstrating 'militant tendency' character. But this is, I suggest, a misunderstanding on Butler's part. Its an excusable misunderstanding because Butler has had recent experience of 'militant tendency' evangelicalism in his diocese, which, notably, was resisted by other evangelicals (he mentions this in the article).
Nevertheless, it is a misunderstanding of GAFCON, and it reflects a lack of the very 'thoughtfulness' which Butler espouses! A truer understanding of GAFCON would acknowledge that it is a broader party within Anglicanism than a 'militant tendency' (that is, there is a 'militant tendency' within its ranks, but that is not the whole). Its a broader party, for instance, because it includes Anglicans who are simply bewildered and hurt by the oppressive power of liberalism which in its own 'militant tendency' manner has taken control of parts of the Communion: these bewildered Anglicans have no wish to takeover the Communion but have a keen desire to know the Communion is a 'safe' place for them. Its a broader party because it includes Anglicans from places as diverse as Nigeria and Sydney who are utterly open and transparent about the particular approach to mission and ecclesiology to which they are committed. Its also a broader party because it represents a large group of Anglicans who have no vision for gaining control of the Communion (or parts such as the Church of England) but have a great vision for a restoration of the Communion along theological lines consistent and coherent with foundational Anglican and Scripturally orthodox theology. Anglicans, for instance, who would love to find Archbishop Rowan Williams giving a stronger leadership towards such a restoration and into whose heads the thoughts of 'deposing' him have never entered.
What is missing from a number of comments and opinions being expressed from a liberal perspective is any appreciation of GAFCON as a movement of last resort and of late reaction to the power plays of liberal tendencies in the Anglican Communion. With very rare exceptions you will not find a liberal Anglican saying anything like the following, 'Perhaps we have been wrong to push so hard to be a church so relevant to the modern world that we have had to jettison so much theological baggage from our foundations in Scripture and the BCP, 39A, and the Ordinal. And, maybe we should have checked from time to time whether there are limits to diversity, boundaries around Anglican thinking which are more like classic Anglican theology and less like the manifesto of the American Democratic Party or the British/New Zealand Labour Parties.'
Yes, hell could freeze over, and evolution recycle its way back to the dinosaurs before you will find the likes of Desmond Tutu or John Spong acknowledging any contribution at all to GAFCON and its final statement.
UPDATE: John Richardson has done us all a great favour by blogging directly from the important PostGAFCON meeting in All Souls Langham Place, 1 July 2008.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Presiding Bishop Schori Loses the Plot
This is Presiding Bishop Schori's response to the GAFCON final statement:
Much of the Anglican world must be lamenting the latest emission from GAFCON. Anglicanism has always been broader than some find comfortable. This statement does not represent the end of Anglicanism, merely another chapter in a centuries-old struggle for dominance by those who consider themselves the only true believers. Anglicans will continue to worship God in their churches, serve the hungry and needy in their communities, and build missional relationships with others across the globe, despite the desire of a few leaders to narrow the influence of the gospel. We look forward to the opportunities of the Lambeth Conference for constructive conversation, inspired prayer, and relational encounters.
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church
What is the word 'emission' doing in this statement?
But the great difficulty with this statement is this: "merely another chapter in a centuries-old struggle for dominance by those who consider themselves the only true believers."
If Presiding Bishop Schori thinks she is involved in a power struggle and not a contention for truth then she betrays at best a 'different' understanding of the role of the gospel in the life of the church and at worst a trivialisation of the gospel. GAFCON is not a grab for power. It is an attempt to tell the truth. Whether it is a good, bad or indifferent attempt, the issue Presiding Bishop Schori should be addressing - in her role as a teaching pastor of the church - is whether GAFCON has told the truth or not. If it has not told the truth, say so, but do not mock it with words like 'emission' and do not impugn it as a 'struggle for dominance'. If it has told the truth then admit it and talk about the next step in our Communion being a true union in the body of Christ of people with the mind of Christ.
Its a bit rich when a bishop who presides over a vast legal apparatus brought to bear against a minority of Episcopalians talks about a 'struggle for dominance'! I think Presiding Bishop Schori has lost the plot. But I imagine a number of Episcopalians would tell me they have been trying to tell this to the Communion ever since she took office.
When we compare this response with Archbishop Rowan Williams' and Bishop Tom Wright's then we begin to see the theological quality of the leadership of TEC. It will have to be on another occasion that praise is required as a response to that quality.
Much of the Anglican world must be lamenting the latest emission from GAFCON. Anglicanism has always been broader than some find comfortable. This statement does not represent the end of Anglicanism, merely another chapter in a centuries-old struggle for dominance by those who consider themselves the only true believers. Anglicans will continue to worship God in their churches, serve the hungry and needy in their communities, and build missional relationships with others across the globe, despite the desire of a few leaders to narrow the influence of the gospel. We look forward to the opportunities of the Lambeth Conference for constructive conversation, inspired prayer, and relational encounters.
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church
What is the word 'emission' doing in this statement?
But the great difficulty with this statement is this: "merely another chapter in a centuries-old struggle for dominance by those who consider themselves the only true believers."
If Presiding Bishop Schori thinks she is involved in a power struggle and not a contention for truth then she betrays at best a 'different' understanding of the role of the gospel in the life of the church and at worst a trivialisation of the gospel. GAFCON is not a grab for power. It is an attempt to tell the truth. Whether it is a good, bad or indifferent attempt, the issue Presiding Bishop Schori should be addressing - in her role as a teaching pastor of the church - is whether GAFCON has told the truth or not. If it has not told the truth, say so, but do not mock it with words like 'emission' and do not impugn it as a 'struggle for dominance'. If it has told the truth then admit it and talk about the next step in our Communion being a true union in the body of Christ of people with the mind of Christ.
Its a bit rich when a bishop who presides over a vast legal apparatus brought to bear against a minority of Episcopalians talks about a 'struggle for dominance'! I think Presiding Bishop Schori has lost the plot. But I imagine a number of Episcopalians would tell me they have been trying to tell this to the Communion ever since she took office.
When we compare this response with Archbishop Rowan Williams' and Bishop Tom Wright's then we begin to see the theological quality of the leadership of TEC. It will have to be on another occasion that praise is required as a response to that quality.
What Archbishop Rowan says and does not say in response to GAFCON
Here is Archbishop Rowan's response to the GAFCON final statement, and below it is a brief comment from me.
Anglican Communion News Service
Archbishop of Canterbury responds to GAFCON statement
Posted On : June 30, 2008 5:04 PM | Posted By : Webmaster
ACNS: ACNS4417
Related Categories: Lambeth
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has responded to the final declaration of the Global Anglican Future Conference with the following statement:
The Final Statement from the GAFCON meeting in Jordan and Jerusalem contains much that is positive and encouraging about the priorities of those who met for prayer and pilgrimage in the last week. The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues. I agree that the Communion needs to be united in its commitments on these matters, and I have no doubt that the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON’s deliberations. Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion
However, GAFCON’s proposals for the way ahead are problematic in all sorts of ways, and I urge those who have outlined these to think very carefully about the risks entailed.
A ‘Primates’ Council’ which consists only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion will not pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion. And any claim to be free to operate across provincial boundaries is fraught with difficulties, both theological and practical – theological because of our historic commitments to mutual recognition of ministries in the Communion, practical because of the obvious strain of responsibly exercising episcopal or primatial authority across enormous geographical and cultural divides.
Two questions arise at once about what has been proposed. By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council? And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?
No-one should for a moment impute selfish or malicious motives to those who have offered pastoral oversight to congregations in other provinces; these actions, however we judge them, arise from pastoral and spiritual concern. But one question has repeatedly been raised which is now becoming very serious: how is a bishop or primate in another continent able to discriminate effectively between a genuine crisis of pastoral relationship and theological integrity, and a situation where there are underlying non-theological motivations at work? We have seen instances of intervention in dioceses whose leadership is unquestionably orthodox simply because of local difficulties of a personal and administrative nature. We have also seen instances of clergy disciplined for scandalous behaviour in one jurisdiction accepted in another, apparently without due process. Some other Christian churches have unhappy experience of this problem and it needs to be addressed honestly.
It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion. If they are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve. This challenge is one of the most significant focuses for the forthcoming Lambeth Conference. One of its major stated aims is to restore and deepen confidence in our Anglican identity. And this task will require all who care as deeply as the authors of the statement say they do about the future of Anglicanism to play their part.
The language of ‘colonialism’ has been freely used of existing patterns. No-one is likely to look back with complacency to the colonial legacy. But emerging from the legacy of colonialism must mean a new co-operation of equals, not a simple reversal of power. If those who speak for GAFCON are willing to share in a genuine renewal of all our patterns of reflection and decision-making in the Communion, they are welcome, especially in the shaping of an effective Covenant for our future together.
I believe that it is wrong to assume we are now so far apart that all those outside the GAFCON network are simply proclaiming another gospel. This is not the case; it is not the experience of millions of faithful and biblically focused Anglicans in every province. What is true is that, on all sides of our controversies, slogans, misrepresentations and caricatures abound. And they need to be challenged in the name of the respect and patience we owe to each other in Jesus Christ.
I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ‘wait for one another’. I would say the same to those in whose name this statement has been issued. An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents.
© Rowan Williams
I applaud what the Archbishop says because he highlights the grave potential for a self-selecting "Primates Council" to cause grave mischief to the integrity of the fellowship in our Communion through false discernment of "crises" presented to them. I never underestimate the potential for evangelicals to characterise certain troubles as 'theological' which in fact are 'psychological'!
However, in line with some previous thoughts re the ball being in Archbishop Williams' court, I am troubled by what Archbishop Rowan does not say in his statement. He acknowledges that there are very serious crises in our Communion when he asks, "how is a bishop or primate in another continent able to discriminate effectively between a genuine crisis of pastoral relationship and theological integrity, ...". But he offers no recognition of the fact that GAFCON's very happening is a sign of despair at the ineffectiveness of current Communion structures to deal with the genuine crises the Communion faces (here I especially think of the situation in North America). I suggest he has until the end of Lambeth to make this recognition in a decisive manner (e.g. by acknowledging the need for an alternative province in North America). Naturally it would assist him if the non-attenders at Lambeth attended!
Anglican Communion News Service
Archbishop of Canterbury responds to GAFCON statement
Posted On : June 30, 2008 5:04 PM | Posted By : Webmaster
ACNS: ACNS4417
Related Categories: Lambeth
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has responded to the final declaration of the Global Anglican Future Conference with the following statement:
The Final Statement from the GAFCON meeting in Jordan and Jerusalem contains much that is positive and encouraging about the priorities of those who met for prayer and pilgrimage in the last week. The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues. I agree that the Communion needs to be united in its commitments on these matters, and I have no doubt that the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON’s deliberations. Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion
However, GAFCON’s proposals for the way ahead are problematic in all sorts of ways, and I urge those who have outlined these to think very carefully about the risks entailed.
A ‘Primates’ Council’ which consists only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion will not pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion. And any claim to be free to operate across provincial boundaries is fraught with difficulties, both theological and practical – theological because of our historic commitments to mutual recognition of ministries in the Communion, practical because of the obvious strain of responsibly exercising episcopal or primatial authority across enormous geographical and cultural divides.
Two questions arise at once about what has been proposed. By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council? And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?
No-one should for a moment impute selfish or malicious motives to those who have offered pastoral oversight to congregations in other provinces; these actions, however we judge them, arise from pastoral and spiritual concern. But one question has repeatedly been raised which is now becoming very serious: how is a bishop or primate in another continent able to discriminate effectively between a genuine crisis of pastoral relationship and theological integrity, and a situation where there are underlying non-theological motivations at work? We have seen instances of intervention in dioceses whose leadership is unquestionably orthodox simply because of local difficulties of a personal and administrative nature. We have also seen instances of clergy disciplined for scandalous behaviour in one jurisdiction accepted in another, apparently without due process. Some other Christian churches have unhappy experience of this problem and it needs to be addressed honestly.
It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion. If they are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve. This challenge is one of the most significant focuses for the forthcoming Lambeth Conference. One of its major stated aims is to restore and deepen confidence in our Anglican identity. And this task will require all who care as deeply as the authors of the statement say they do about the future of Anglicanism to play their part.
The language of ‘colonialism’ has been freely used of existing patterns. No-one is likely to look back with complacency to the colonial legacy. But emerging from the legacy of colonialism must mean a new co-operation of equals, not a simple reversal of power. If those who speak for GAFCON are willing to share in a genuine renewal of all our patterns of reflection and decision-making in the Communion, they are welcome, especially in the shaping of an effective Covenant for our future together.
I believe that it is wrong to assume we are now so far apart that all those outside the GAFCON network are simply proclaiming another gospel. This is not the case; it is not the experience of millions of faithful and biblically focused Anglicans in every province. What is true is that, on all sides of our controversies, slogans, misrepresentations and caricatures abound. And they need to be challenged in the name of the respect and patience we owe to each other in Jesus Christ.
I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ‘wait for one another’. I would say the same to those in whose name this statement has been issued. An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents.
© Rowan Williams
I applaud what the Archbishop says because he highlights the grave potential for a self-selecting "Primates Council" to cause grave mischief to the integrity of the fellowship in our Communion through false discernment of "crises" presented to them. I never underestimate the potential for evangelicals to characterise certain troubles as 'theological' which in fact are 'psychological'!
However, in line with some previous thoughts re the ball being in Archbishop Williams' court, I am troubled by what Archbishop Rowan does not say in his statement. He acknowledges that there are very serious crises in our Communion when he asks, "how is a bishop or primate in another continent able to discriminate effectively between a genuine crisis of pastoral relationship and theological integrity, ...". But he offers no recognition of the fact that GAFCON's very happening is a sign of despair at the ineffectiveness of current Communion structures to deal with the genuine crises the Communion faces (here I especially think of the situation in North America). I suggest he has until the end of Lambeth to make this recognition in a decisive manner (e.g. by acknowledging the need for an alternative province in North America). Naturally it would assist him if the non-attenders at Lambeth attended!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)