Tuesday, July 1, 2008

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
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!


Anonymous said...

"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)".

'Structures' really means 'people'. How do you think GAFCON could have been averted? Simple. By not inviting the American consecrators of VGR and the Canadian proponets of ssb's and gay marriage to Lambeth. You have to ask why power was not used.

Peter Carrell said...

Dear Anonymous,
There are decisions ++RW has made that I do not understand!

Anonymous said...

They're not hard to understand. Think of Fabius Cincinnatus Cunctator and Gramsci.

Peter Carrell said...

Fabius - good point, though I note that even he got two shots at his particular style of leadership!

Gramsci - I presume you refer to his ideas about 'cultural hegemony'. It would be intriguing to know whether Blair's government were being deliberately Gramscian in appointing ++RW.

Anonymous said...

I meant 'Fabius *Maximus Cunctator' - failing memory with advancing years! Cincinnatus had the good grace to put down the fasces and take up the plow as soon as his task was done.
Yes, I meant 'the long march through the institutions'. You have to wonder why it is that the CoE has many large evangelical parishes but leadership is largely in liberal catholic ('Affirming Catholicism') hands. It's all to do with patronage - bishops appoint suffragans, and suffragans becoem diocesans. Williams' appointment was a fait accompli once Blair appointed Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss to chair the selection panel, or so a friend in England who knows about these things has told me. Blair had his own agenda, to remake the Church of England in his own image, in the same way that he is now trying to s***w the Roman Catholic Church. Had it been a matter of popular choice, Jones of Liverpool would most likely have been appointed.
Blair has been Gramscian through and through, and the near-State monopoly on broadcasting, education and health services meant he got very far with very little effective opposition.