Many good links on Titus One Nine re GAFCON II and what is going on there.
One link is to a video in which various speakers speak about the situation in their church. The first speaker here is Bishop Richard Ellena of Nelson.
My overall impression from afar, including noting warm comments on Twitter, is that the event is outstanding as an occasion of Anglican Fellowship in Christ.
I do not think we should underestimate the importance of this fellowship, especially the depth and width of it. Here are some 1300 Anglican leaders from some 29 or about three-quarters of Anglican churches gathering to support one another in the cause of Christ. Out of such bonds of affection is generated new commitment to being Anglican with an almost inevitable revising-and-reforming what it means to be Anglican. For instance, it is not rocket science to imagine that a bishop's sense of what it means to be a bishop in the global communion of Anglicans is going to be much more impacted by GAFCON II than by Lambeth 2008 or 2018.
We live in changing times and the Anglican Communion is evolving as we watch Nairobi from afar.
ADDENDUM: A link here to Mike Ovey's address. Challenging catchphrase: Grace of God or World of the West!
20 comments:
G'day Peter,
Those last two words, "from afar", are the serious punch-line here.
Eph 5:14 might apply ...!
For many of us here from Oceania Mike Ovey's address has been a real highlight. Which Gospel does the ACANZP want us to believe? Perhaps a pertinent question as everyone looks to cash in on two hundred years since the arrival of the Good News of Jesus Christ on our shores in 2014.
Absolutely Zane!
Hi Ron
If you want to discuss your differences with Bishop Richard about his view of the polity of this church and your view, please email him, bishop at nelsonanglican.org.nz. I do not think some things you air in a comment offered here about these differences are appropriate for publishing on a blog which he is not a regular reader of.
My question to you here, Peter, is: does your obvious regard for this new emanation of separately-contrived 'Anglicanism' exceed your loyalty to the Provincial Church of which you are a part, and which is not connected to GAFCON - except through the tenuous links of one bishop and 13 other New Zealanders?
Do you think that the Gafcon church is the 'new face' of world-wide Anglicanism? And is it superior in some way to the Anglicanism of which you presently are a part? I am a little disturbed that you are promoting this revisionist view of how Anglicanism should present its mission to the world - obviously in competition with the Instruments of Unity in world-wide Anglicanism.
I understand that you are the education officer for our diocese of Christchurch in ACANZP. Is your promotion of the Gafcon crowd part of your educational remit? Or is it just your personal opinion. There is a difference
Hi Ron
Great questions which deserve a great answer which time does not permit just yet. Indeed my next post, when I can find the time, likely will be the response.
In the meantime, you might recall that I have been somewhat critical of the Jerusalem Declaration ...
They arenot great questions, they are Mcarthyist accusations concerning others peoples loyalty for simply supporting a reform movement in the Church, and those of us hoping for useful discussion about GAFCON are forced to wade through this hysteria level vitriol and judgementalism.
Very tiresome.
Peter,
I agree with Sean also. I think Ron's question are not great. Pejoratives, invective, bitterness, same ol same ol.
Do I detect a little reluctance on the part of Shawn and Joshua to the prospect of your providing some coherent answers to my questions, Peter? I wonder if that's because they do not understand the basic importance of priestly loyalty to one's local Church - normally to one's local bishop - on matters of local import.
This does not apply to lay people in the same way. They do not, for instance, have to vow loyalty to their local bishop - as clergy are bound to do in ACANZP
Shawn does not have to worry, he's not a priest. Clergy have a certain duty of filial relationship to their Ordinary. This is why I find Bishop Ellena's public statement of disaffection for ACANZP so out of character for a bishop of the Church; and surely distressing for some, at least, in his diocese.
The interesting thing about your line of questioning Ron - or should that be accusation? - in both your comments is that it seems to fail to grasp the severity of the overall situation. For years, even decades (and perhaps centuries) the western church has drifted - and that word is deliberately taken from Heb 2:1 - from its moorings; it has slowly but surely allowed its tap root to wither and become desiccated. And what roots that remain are mostly in soils that are too shallow and alloyed with elements inimical to the flourishing of the Gospel.
Now, to be sure; many who happen to reside in western societies are themselves blind and deaf to such cultural traits. That is why we need our brothers and sisters from those lands who are not as the fish who are oblivious to their native medium, taking it for granted, despite the poisons that have polluted our waters. They see what we are blind to; they hear what we are deaf to; and they furthermore still wish to act as the Servant of God to deaf, dumb and blind Israel (Isa 42:18ff etc.) despite ourselves. But sadly, like Israel of old, we reject such offers, preferring our own insight and understanding, and walking by our own autonomous lights.
The Gospel was born in conflict: see only Mark 2-3 or Acts 4-5, or the very Cross itself (Rom 9-11). And the source of that conflict was mostly precisely those who knew themselves as the People of God - or so they presumed. And countless times since its birth the paths of the Church have had to traverse similar ways; that is why the OT picture of Israel has always been viewed as a figure for the Church, both positively and negatively. Or have you yourself forgotten the birth pangs of the Church of England from whence you come?! Which church figures Jerusalem, and which Babylon, in your view?! And on what basis? Either back then, at the time of its birth in the 16th C, or today? For, as St Augustine was all too aware, both clean and unclean animals are to be found on board Noah’s ark (City of God Bk 15)!
It has not quite come to it yet in ACANZ&P, a reliving of Acts 4:19 &/or 5:29. But for some others in the AC that time has truly come and gone: ACNA is a thriving reality; and FCA is only going to crystallize and mature; and GAFCON’s significance grow and thrive. While the first decade of the 21st C might have witnessed other avenues, the second decade of the 21st C can only be assured of such things. Church history is full of such cross-roads being negotiated. Thank God our own time is as interesting and as opportune as it is now evidently becoming ... carpe diem!
The interesting thing about Fr Ron's post is that he seems to *assume* some sort of conflict between Gafcon and ACANZP, for no obvious reason.
As I understand it, a bishop and several clergy from your province are in Nairobi. So are several bishops from mine - I was just looking at a photo of the Bishop of Tasmania speaking to one of the American bishops there. So what's the problem?
If it is acceptable to their provincial primates and fellow bishops for these bishops to attend Gafcin II, then why can't Fr Carrell speak about it, or even enthuse about it if he is so inclined?
I get the impression that Fr Ron is on a frolic of his own with this one.
Au contraire, Micahel, I can assure you that my air to the ground assessment of reactions to GAFCON and to Bp Richard's video in particular, is that Ron speaks for many in our church re the concerns and questions he raises.
Now; why am I not surprised by the results of your air being to the ground, Peter (October 26, 2013 at 8:39 AM)?!?!
Fluff and wind continues perhaps ...?
Heh. Yes, should have been 'ear' not 'air'. Straws in the wind? Was that what I have been hearing?
Hi Ron
I am not going to publish comments which get so personal as to tell people what they might consider doing etc, in the way you have written in a couple of rejected comments.
It is a subjective line, what counts as ad hominem, but I am drawing the line.
Peter, the London Underground in the 1930s used to advertise trips to London's outerlying parklands with the now politically incorrect slogan: 'Take your son and heir to where there's sun and air.'
'Air! 'Air!, I say.
Martin
Nor-wester still huffing I 'ear
It's your blog Peter. I realise that you can moderate as you please. I have just used that particular reservation on my blog, kiwianglo.
Commenters here are applauded for humour!
Those who know the weather conditions of Canterbury will know that the huffing nor'wester generates heat and not light!
Post a Comment