OK. Perhaps it is more important to eat than to sleep in comfort but housing is a big, big social issue. Not just here in NZ, but across the Ditch (where I see that despite a housing capital gains tax, the housing market is heating up and nowhere is hotter than Sydney, beloved city of my recent visit), in many other places.
My mates and colleagues, Jolyon, Lyndon, Kate, working out of their nerve centre here in Theology House, are doing fine work on a range of social justice issues. One of their finest contributions concerns housing and good oil on tenants' rights and landlords' obligations.
All their work is gathered up on one site, nicely name Paper Walls. Head there now!
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Monday, November 4, 2013
Frontline Christian Mission at GAFCON
I am delighted to have permission from the Rev Matt Watts, Vicar of Burnside-Harewood here in Christchurch to publish his reflections as a participant at GAFCON 2.
On the frontline – Reflections
from GAFCON
Thirdly, Anglicans I met
here were serious about being in the frontline work of challenging the secular
culture of the West, which is increasingly hostile to Christians. I was
impacted by a conversation with a lawyer from the UK who represents Christians
suffering discrimination. Amongst other things she told me about Christian
nurses losing their jobs for praying with patients, an employee of British
Airways dismissed for wearing a cross to work, and in the last week 3 men
locked up in police cells for preaching on the streets in England. As part of
the week we were asked to choose a "mini-conference" to attend. I
chose to join one entitled, "Gospel and Culture: How can we re-evagelise
the West?". This provided lots of fertile soil for my ongoing reflection,
so prepare to hear more about this in the months ahead. In particular I
realised that in the New Zealand church often we ask "How can we make the
gospel relevant to our culture?" when we should be asking "How can we
challenge the false assumptions of our culture so that the unchanging gospel
can be clearly heard?"
On the frontline – Reflections
from GAFCON
Reflections from the
Global Anglican Future Conference, Nairobi, 21 to 26th October 2013, Matt Watts
I'm writing as I sit in
All Saints Cathedral, Nairobi at the end of a very busy conference. In the pew
behind me, an African delegate is stretched out asleep, presumably getting some
rest before a long journey home. This is the hottest day so far, and the
cathedral is definitely the coolest and the quietest place to be. Quiet that is
until my friend behind me has begun to snore.
Staying in Kenya has been
an intense cocktail of experiences. The wonderfully warm welcome of our African
hosts. The majesty of giraffes strolling through the nearby national park. The
jostling traffic swerving at the last moment to avoid pedestrians ambling
across the road. The sheer volume of the revivalist meeting taking place across
the road from our hotel at 1.30am this morning. And the fantastic conference
facilities adjoining this cathedral, a church where 7000 Anglicans gather to worship
each Sunday. I also met up with our mission partner Anna Tovey and hear about
her hopes to return here next year.
And so to the conference
itself. 1358 Anglicans are gathered here this week, including 331 bishops.
That's a lot of purple! My take home message from GAFCON is that the Anglicans
I have met here are frontline Anglicans. This thought crystallised for me as I sat
in the conference auditorium waiting for morning worship to start. Up until
this week I've never been to an Anglican worship service where the front row
fills up first. But here, people want to be where the action is. The church
fills up from the front. And so that caused me to reflect on the other ways in
which the people I have met here are frontline Anglicans.
Firstly, there are many
here who are in the frontline of persecution. We heard heart-rending stories
from South Sudan, Pakistan and Nigeria about civil war, slaughter of innocent
Christians and burning of churches. My old friend from theological college,
Bishop Francis of Rokon, South Sudan, told me of the random attacks on
Christians in the north of his country, causing many people to flee their
homes.
Dr Patrick Sookdheo of
the Barnabas Fund talked about the imperative for us all to support Christian
brothers and sisters suffering for their faith. And we were reminded several
times that here is no authentic discipleship without suffering. We have much to
learn from the persecuted church.
Secondly, many Christians
I met here are at the frontline of evangelism. The conference began with
delegates sharing testimony of the East African Revival, a period from 1930 to
1970 where the Anglican church repented of its sluggish faith and compromised
witness and discovered a new power in the gospel, resulting in huge growth. We
heard that there can be no revival without repentance. And as delegates we were
called to repent both individually and corporately in a powerful way in the
final Holy Communion service. I was also impacted by stories from the Anglican
Church in North America, a new movement which has chosen to leave the official
Episcopal Church in the USA for reasons of conscience, and has experienced a
renewed vigour in churchplanting and personal evangelism. The boldness of
African Christians in sharing their faith encouraged me to think and pray about
how we make the most of the visit of Sam, Margaret and Kiziwana Tsumwsiege to
our parish next year. They can help us to fulfil Jesus's great commission which
was the theme of the conference: "Go and make disciples of all nations..."
(Matthew 28:19)
Thirdly, Anglicans I met
here were serious about being in the frontline work of challenging the secular
culture of the West, which is increasingly hostile to Christians. I was
impacted by a conversation with a lawyer from the UK who represents Christians
suffering discrimination. Amongst other things she told me about Christian
nurses losing their jobs for praying with patients, an employee of British
Airways dismissed for wearing a cross to work, and in the last week 3 men
locked up in police cells for preaching on the streets in England. As part of
the week we were asked to choose a "mini-conference" to attend. I
chose to join one entitled, "Gospel and Culture: How can we re-evagelise
the West?". This provided lots of fertile soil for my ongoing reflection,
so prepare to hear more about this in the months ahead. In particular I
realised that in the New Zealand church often we ask "How can we make the
gospel relevant to our culture?" when we should be asking "How can we
challenge the false assumptions of our culture so that the unchanging gospel
can be clearly heard?"
Fourthly, many of the
Anglicans I met here are in the frontline of the struggles within the worldwide
Anglican Communion. GAFCON was born out of a situation where The Episcopal
Church in the USA defied the agreed position of the Anglican Communion on
same-sex relationships (Lambeth Conference 1998) by consecrating a bishop who
had divorced his wife and entered into a homosexual relationship. As a result
many parishes left The Episcopal Church as a matter of conscience, but then
ironically found themselves sidelined by the official structures of the
Anglican Communion. The first GAFCON conference (2008) became a means of
supporting those parishes, leading to the setting up of the parallel Anglican
Church in North America. If you want to find out more about the outworking of
this situation, the Nairobi Communique, drafted and approved at the conference,
is available online at www.gafcon.org. Whilst many people find this aspect of
GAFCON controversial, I count it a privilege to have interacted with faithful
Anglicans who have found themselves on the frontline of this battle, aware that
we may face similar issues in New Zealand in the near future.
Not everything about
GAFCON was wholesome. Nor did I agree with everything that was said from the
front. Some of the Nigerian bishops showed a lack of courtesy when dealing with
the conference volunteers. One of the speakers at the mini-conference I
attended advocated what I felt was a reductonist and deficient doctrine of the
church. But in all, this has been a very happy, challenging and equipping time.
I feel ready to face the challenges that are ahead and to lead our parish in
the task of Jesus's great commission: "Go
therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey
everything I have commanded you. And remember that I am with you always, to the
end of the age." (Matthew 28:19-20)
Saturday, November 2, 2013
GAFCON's gaffe (2) - misunderstanding gospel and culture
Has the GAFCON communique made the right pitch for the relationship between Western Anglican churches and Western culture? I suggest not.
Working from some analysis (at the foot of this post) I suggest the communique represents an approach to Western Anglican churches which encourages conservative churches to focus on their purity of doctrine and practice at the expense of their mission. This is a gaffe because we cannot afford such mistakes in the West = Zone of Christian Decline.
We have been told that the original communique draft had a very explicit mention of Western culture, in negative terms. That the explicit reference has been removed from the final version is good, but it does not alter the implications which remain in the communique, that Western culture is horribly diseased and from this disease the church has become infected with biblical unfaithfulness and a false gospel.
It is a short step from such thinking to offering support for biblically faithful churches adhering to the true gospel, even where those Anglican churches are outside the normative structures of churches such as the Church of England. At precisely such a point, however, an emphasis falls on the purifying of the church, decontaminating it from the false gospel induced by Western culture. It is an attractive option to pursue as no one in their ideal mind wants to be part of an apostate church.
What is overlooked in the communique in my view is that no matter how we evaluate Western culture, for we Western Anglicans it is our culture and it is the only culture in which we live, move and have our evangelical being. In particular, it is the culture of our mission field. If this culture is tolerant of changes in sexual behaviour (both straight and gay) and the church has become infected by that tolerance, nevertheless it is to such a tolerant people that we are commanded to preach the gospel.
Are we to say to our fellow Westerners, 'Your tolerance of fellow human beings working out how to love one another is evil'? That does not strike me as a good way to make evangelistic conversation. Nor does it strike me as the way Paul and others conducted their apostolic mission in the Hellenistic pleasure grounds of the Mediterranean towns and cities. Yet when we establish and encourage churches whose sole distinction (when all is boiled down to basics) is their anti-current-attitudes-to-homosexuality, are we not being party to saying to our fellow Westerners, 'Your tolerance etc is evil. Actually, you are part of evil in our society'?
It is good to purify the church but purification of the church does not take place in a vacuum. History teaches us (as does contemporary observation of, say, the Exclusive Brethren) that the purer the church the further away from connection with society it places itself.
In the particular instance of concerns over homosexuality we Westerners no longer live in a culture which vilifies homosexuals. Our culture does not rejoice that the church's attitudes to homosexuality seem stuck in the 1950s or even 1850s. We live in a culture which loves, welcomes and supports homosexuals and is completely mystified by what is perceived as opposition and antagonism to homosexuals. To preach the gospel in such cultural conditions requires great care.
Yes, we must be faithful to the truth revealed in Scripture and taught in the tradition of the church. But Scripture also presents us with the example of the greatest evangelist, Paul, who sought to be a Jew to the Jews and a Gentile to the Gentiles, that is, minimised cultural barriers to the gospel being heard. I do not see how forming Anglican churches whose point of distinctiveness is a specific approach to homosexuality at odds with surrounding society minimises cultural barriers to hearing the gospel.
It is not as though we are forming churches whose point of distinction is promotion of lifestyle at odds with the material affluence encouraged by Western culture. As a commenter on a recent post points out, one feels like saying something when a church family takes off for an overseas holiday while the church is trying to raise funds for a school in South Sudan but for (what can only be cultural reasons) one does not speak up.
It would be quite a barrier to the hearing of the gospel if it was clear to hearers that when they convert to Christ they will sell not just one of their houses but all of them and bring the proceeds to the Vestry for dispersal among the poor. Yet, if cultural distinctiveness should be a feature of Anglican churches, does not Scripture point us in that direction?
Where is the deep thinking within the communique which justifies emphasis on homosexuality as the contemporary form of cultural infection of Western Anglican churches rather than on greed and selfishness?
What GAFCON's communique misses is that Western cultural is nuanced on matters of sexuality. Imagine for a moment if the concern of our day was tolerance of pornography in the life of the church (wait, someone is going to send me statistics about pastors' addiction to pornography!). Clearly we live in a culture which tolerates pornography and allows it to be widely available, especially in these days of the internet. Even more clearly then, tolerance of pornography in the life of the church would be an infection of church life by Western culture. But here is the thing: Western culture tolerates pornography but is simultaneously uncomfortable with its own tolerance. Thus we have ongoing discussions about pornography: how can we curb access to it by (say) teenagers? Is it not demeaning to women, often involving commercial exploitation?
In such a context, for the church to say, in a reasonable manner, laying out the issues, connecting them to society's discomfort, that it is against pornography presents no cultural barrier to the proclamation of the gospel.
Homosexuality is not the same phenomenon. Western society sees no problems with same sex partnerships providing they are conducted with the same decorum as expected of heterosexual partnerships. Sympathy lies with homosexuals. When the church lays out a reasonable explanation for why it does not support same sex partnerships it strikes no common accord with social discomfort about homosexuality. Rather at best it receives quizzical looks from uncomprehending people; at worst it receives virulent criticism with unveiled language about bigotry, homophobia and antediluvian attitudes. Of this subtle differentiation in Western culture between (in the church's eyes) one sexual sin and another, the GAFCON communique offers no recognition.
GAFCON arguably has not done Western Anglicanism many favours by issuing this communique. It has encouraged some Anglicans to believe that they are on the right track by separating off from churches they do not agree with. But the track is a dead end if the disagreement is over homosexuality and GAFCON would have been more helpful by pointing that out.
To focus on unfaithfulness to the gospel in the limited way it has done means that GAFCON may have bought into a church focused understanding of church: if the church is impure, separate off the pure church and be happy.
Better, more faithful to Jesus, would be to encourage the church to have a mission focused understanding of church. In this focus the emphasis falls less on distinctive purity separating the church off from society and more on engagement with social reality.
The great Communion question of today is, How can the global fellowship of Anglicans assist the Western Anglican churches, living in a diseased culture, infected itself by the culture?
The answer is not, If you separate, we will support you.
The answer is, We will support you with understanding and sympathy as your infected churches engage with your diseased culture; we will applaud you as you work out how gospel proclamation in the West works with cultural realities; we urge you to minimise cultural barriers to the proclamation and we assure you of our understanding if that minimisation looks different to the minimisation we ourselves engage in when evangelising in places such as Africa, Asia, Oceania, and South America.
Has GAFCON's communique gaffed on the matter of gospel and culture?
Supportive analysis for above comments:
There is no doubt that GAFCON/GFCA as a movement of Anglicans remains highly concerned about Western attitudes to homosexuality. The Nairobi Communique places the reason for GAFCON's beginnings near the beginning of the communique:
"In 2008, the first GAFCON was convened in order to counter a false gospel which was spreading throughout the Communion. This false gospel questioned the uniqueness of Christ and his substitutionary death, despite the Bible’s clear revelation that he is the only way to the Father (John 14:6). It undermined the authority of God’s Word written. It sought to mask sinful behaviour with the language of human rights. It promoted homosexual practice as consistent with holiness, despite the fact that the Bible clearly identifies it as sinful. A crisis point was reached in 2003 when a man in an active same-sex relationship was consecrated bishop in the USA. In the years that followed, there were repeated attempts to resolve the crisis within the Communion, none of which succeeded. To the contrary, the situation worsened with further defiance. As a response to the crisis, we adopted The Jerusalem Statement and Declaration which commits us to biblical faithfulness, and has since provided the framework for renewed Anglican orthodoxy to which we, in all our different traditions – Evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics and Charismatics – are committed. We also formed the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GFCA)."
There are concerns in the communique about social, economic, political issues such as poverty but Western attitudes to homosexuality receive as much if not more attention than any other issues:
"We grieve that several national governments, aided by some church leaders, have claimed to redefine marriage and have turned same-sex marriage into a human rights issue. Human rights, we believe, are founded on a true understanding of human nature, which is that we are created in God’s image, male and female such that a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife (Matthew 19:6; Ephesians 5:31). We want to make clear that any civil partnership of a sexual nature does not receive the blessing of God. We continue to pray for and offer pastoral support to Christians struggling with same-sex temptation who remain celibate in obedience to Christ and affirm them in their faithfulness."
The concepts of supporting 'biblical faithfulness' or combatting 'false gospel' is important to the communique's setting out of the reasons for the continuing work of GAFCON, including cross-jurisdictional support of faithful Anglicans in areas subject to false leadership. On 'false gospel' we can read among the priorities of GAFCON,
"Guarding the gospel. We shall continue publicly to expose any false gospel that is not consistent with apostolic teaching and clearly to articulate the gospel in the church and in the world."
But if we ask what 'false gospel' is at stake, it is hard to find much evidence in the communique of concerns other than about attitudes to homosexuality. Although the first paragraph cited above describes, "a false gospel which was spreading throughout the Communion. This false gospel questioned the uniqueness of Christ and his substitutionary death," 20th century Anglicanism entertained questions about the uniqueness of Christ and whether his death was substitutionary for a long time without provoking a reaction such as GAFCON. I think it reasonable to deduce that the crunch point over a 'false gospel' in the life of the Communion is homosexuality: "It promoted homosexual practice as consistent with holiness, despite the fact that the Bible clearly identifies it as sinful."
Finally, here re text, with the exception of the Diocese of Recife in Brazil, references to biblical (un)faithfulness, false gospel, appear aimed at Anglican situations in the West. England, for instance, is singled out with a paragraph of its own:
"We commit ourselves to the support and defence of those who in standing for apostolic truth are marginalized or excluded from formal communion with other Anglicans in their dioceses. We have therefore recognized the Anglican Mission in England (AMiE) as an expression of authentic Anglicanism both for those within and outside the Church of England, and welcomed their intention to appoint a General Secretary of AMiE.
Working from some analysis (at the foot of this post) I suggest the communique represents an approach to Western Anglican churches which encourages conservative churches to focus on their purity of doctrine and practice at the expense of their mission. This is a gaffe because we cannot afford such mistakes in the West = Zone of Christian Decline.
We have been told that the original communique draft had a very explicit mention of Western culture, in negative terms. That the explicit reference has been removed from the final version is good, but it does not alter the implications which remain in the communique, that Western culture is horribly diseased and from this disease the church has become infected with biblical unfaithfulness and a false gospel.
It is a short step from such thinking to offering support for biblically faithful churches adhering to the true gospel, even where those Anglican churches are outside the normative structures of churches such as the Church of England. At precisely such a point, however, an emphasis falls on the purifying of the church, decontaminating it from the false gospel induced by Western culture. It is an attractive option to pursue as no one in their ideal mind wants to be part of an apostate church.
What is overlooked in the communique in my view is that no matter how we evaluate Western culture, for we Western Anglicans it is our culture and it is the only culture in which we live, move and have our evangelical being. In particular, it is the culture of our mission field. If this culture is tolerant of changes in sexual behaviour (both straight and gay) and the church has become infected by that tolerance, nevertheless it is to such a tolerant people that we are commanded to preach the gospel.
Are we to say to our fellow Westerners, 'Your tolerance of fellow human beings working out how to love one another is evil'? That does not strike me as a good way to make evangelistic conversation. Nor does it strike me as the way Paul and others conducted their apostolic mission in the Hellenistic pleasure grounds of the Mediterranean towns and cities. Yet when we establish and encourage churches whose sole distinction (when all is boiled down to basics) is their anti-current-attitudes-to-homosexuality, are we not being party to saying to our fellow Westerners, 'Your tolerance etc is evil. Actually, you are part of evil in our society'?
It is good to purify the church but purification of the church does not take place in a vacuum. History teaches us (as does contemporary observation of, say, the Exclusive Brethren) that the purer the church the further away from connection with society it places itself.
In the particular instance of concerns over homosexuality we Westerners no longer live in a culture which vilifies homosexuals. Our culture does not rejoice that the church's attitudes to homosexuality seem stuck in the 1950s or even 1850s. We live in a culture which loves, welcomes and supports homosexuals and is completely mystified by what is perceived as opposition and antagonism to homosexuals. To preach the gospel in such cultural conditions requires great care.
Yes, we must be faithful to the truth revealed in Scripture and taught in the tradition of the church. But Scripture also presents us with the example of the greatest evangelist, Paul, who sought to be a Jew to the Jews and a Gentile to the Gentiles, that is, minimised cultural barriers to the gospel being heard. I do not see how forming Anglican churches whose point of distinctiveness is a specific approach to homosexuality at odds with surrounding society minimises cultural barriers to hearing the gospel.
It is not as though we are forming churches whose point of distinction is promotion of lifestyle at odds with the material affluence encouraged by Western culture. As a commenter on a recent post points out, one feels like saying something when a church family takes off for an overseas holiday while the church is trying to raise funds for a school in South Sudan but for (what can only be cultural reasons) one does not speak up.
It would be quite a barrier to the hearing of the gospel if it was clear to hearers that when they convert to Christ they will sell not just one of their houses but all of them and bring the proceeds to the Vestry for dispersal among the poor. Yet, if cultural distinctiveness should be a feature of Anglican churches, does not Scripture point us in that direction?
Where is the deep thinking within the communique which justifies emphasis on homosexuality as the contemporary form of cultural infection of Western Anglican churches rather than on greed and selfishness?
What GAFCON's communique misses is that Western cultural is nuanced on matters of sexuality. Imagine for a moment if the concern of our day was tolerance of pornography in the life of the church (wait, someone is going to send me statistics about pastors' addiction to pornography!). Clearly we live in a culture which tolerates pornography and allows it to be widely available, especially in these days of the internet. Even more clearly then, tolerance of pornography in the life of the church would be an infection of church life by Western culture. But here is the thing: Western culture tolerates pornography but is simultaneously uncomfortable with its own tolerance. Thus we have ongoing discussions about pornography: how can we curb access to it by (say) teenagers? Is it not demeaning to women, often involving commercial exploitation?
In such a context, for the church to say, in a reasonable manner, laying out the issues, connecting them to society's discomfort, that it is against pornography presents no cultural barrier to the proclamation of the gospel.
Homosexuality is not the same phenomenon. Western society sees no problems with same sex partnerships providing they are conducted with the same decorum as expected of heterosexual partnerships. Sympathy lies with homosexuals. When the church lays out a reasonable explanation for why it does not support same sex partnerships it strikes no common accord with social discomfort about homosexuality. Rather at best it receives quizzical looks from uncomprehending people; at worst it receives virulent criticism with unveiled language about bigotry, homophobia and antediluvian attitudes. Of this subtle differentiation in Western culture between (in the church's eyes) one sexual sin and another, the GAFCON communique offers no recognition.
GAFCON arguably has not done Western Anglicanism many favours by issuing this communique. It has encouraged some Anglicans to believe that they are on the right track by separating off from churches they do not agree with. But the track is a dead end if the disagreement is over homosexuality and GAFCON would have been more helpful by pointing that out.
To focus on unfaithfulness to the gospel in the limited way it has done means that GAFCON may have bought into a church focused understanding of church: if the church is impure, separate off the pure church and be happy.
Better, more faithful to Jesus, would be to encourage the church to have a mission focused understanding of church. In this focus the emphasis falls less on distinctive purity separating the church off from society and more on engagement with social reality.
The great Communion question of today is, How can the global fellowship of Anglicans assist the Western Anglican churches, living in a diseased culture, infected itself by the culture?
The answer is not, If you separate, we will support you.
The answer is, We will support you with understanding and sympathy as your infected churches engage with your diseased culture; we will applaud you as you work out how gospel proclamation in the West works with cultural realities; we urge you to minimise cultural barriers to the proclamation and we assure you of our understanding if that minimisation looks different to the minimisation we ourselves engage in when evangelising in places such as Africa, Asia, Oceania, and South America.
Has GAFCON's communique gaffed on the matter of gospel and culture?
Supportive analysis for above comments:
There is no doubt that GAFCON/GFCA as a movement of Anglicans remains highly concerned about Western attitudes to homosexuality. The Nairobi Communique places the reason for GAFCON's beginnings near the beginning of the communique:
"In 2008, the first GAFCON was convened in order to counter a false gospel which was spreading throughout the Communion. This false gospel questioned the uniqueness of Christ and his substitutionary death, despite the Bible’s clear revelation that he is the only way to the Father (John 14:6). It undermined the authority of God’s Word written. It sought to mask sinful behaviour with the language of human rights. It promoted homosexual practice as consistent with holiness, despite the fact that the Bible clearly identifies it as sinful. A crisis point was reached in 2003 when a man in an active same-sex relationship was consecrated bishop in the USA. In the years that followed, there were repeated attempts to resolve the crisis within the Communion, none of which succeeded. To the contrary, the situation worsened with further defiance. As a response to the crisis, we adopted The Jerusalem Statement and Declaration which commits us to biblical faithfulness, and has since provided the framework for renewed Anglican orthodoxy to which we, in all our different traditions – Evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics and Charismatics – are committed. We also formed the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GFCA)."
There are concerns in the communique about social, economic, political issues such as poverty but Western attitudes to homosexuality receive as much if not more attention than any other issues:
"We grieve that several national governments, aided by some church leaders, have claimed to redefine marriage and have turned same-sex marriage into a human rights issue. Human rights, we believe, are founded on a true understanding of human nature, which is that we are created in God’s image, male and female such that a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife (Matthew 19:6; Ephesians 5:31). We want to make clear that any civil partnership of a sexual nature does not receive the blessing of God. We continue to pray for and offer pastoral support to Christians struggling with same-sex temptation who remain celibate in obedience to Christ and affirm them in their faithfulness."
The concepts of supporting 'biblical faithfulness' or combatting 'false gospel' is important to the communique's setting out of the reasons for the continuing work of GAFCON, including cross-jurisdictional support of faithful Anglicans in areas subject to false leadership. On 'false gospel' we can read among the priorities of GAFCON,
"Guarding the gospel. We shall continue publicly to expose any false gospel that is not consistent with apostolic teaching and clearly to articulate the gospel in the church and in the world."
But if we ask what 'false gospel' is at stake, it is hard to find much evidence in the communique of concerns other than about attitudes to homosexuality. Although the first paragraph cited above describes, "a false gospel which was spreading throughout the Communion. This false gospel questioned the uniqueness of Christ and his substitutionary death," 20th century Anglicanism entertained questions about the uniqueness of Christ and whether his death was substitutionary for a long time without provoking a reaction such as GAFCON. I think it reasonable to deduce that the crunch point over a 'false gospel' in the life of the Communion is homosexuality: "It promoted homosexual practice as consistent with holiness, despite the fact that the Bible clearly identifies it as sinful."
Finally, here re text, with the exception of the Diocese of Recife in Brazil, references to biblical (un)faithfulness, false gospel, appear aimed at Anglican situations in the West. England, for instance, is singled out with a paragraph of its own:
"We commit ourselves to the support and defence of those who in standing for apostolic truth are marginalized or excluded from formal communion with other Anglicans in their dioceses. We have therefore recognized the Anglican Mission in England (AMiE) as an expression of authentic Anglicanism both for those within and outside the Church of England, and welcomed their intention to appoint a General Secretary of AMiE.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Best ever reflection on GAFCON 2?
Andrew Atherstone is superb in this Fulcrum reflection on GAFCON 2. I suggest it repays careful reading whether you are a friend or critic of GAFCON.
Very good too is Lee Gatiss from the Church Society, http://www.churchsociety.org/events/GAFCON2013Report.asp.
Very good too is Lee Gatiss from the Church Society, http://www.churchsociety.org/events/GAFCON2013Report.asp.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Not with a bang but a whimper does the Communion end (UPDATED)
PER KINDNESS OF A COMMENTER: An excellent response to Andrew Brown's column (addressed below) is made by Gavin at drgavsblog here (with a comment to it by Andrew Brown himself). Here is an excerpt:
"At the heart of the liberal revolt against this call to surrender our right to please ourselves lies two things:
START ORIGINAL POST: Andrew Brown kind of annoys me because he writes with what seems to me be an unveiled coat of cynicism. However even the most annoying cynic can put his finger on the truth of the matter.
As preparation for my GAFCON gaffe (2) post - draft in process - I refer you to this column of Andrew Brown, entitled "It started as a split over gay clergy. But now the Anglican Communion is dead.'
One prediction he makes is that there will not be another Lambeth Conference. I think he is wrong on that but my prediction is that the next Lambeth Conference will not amount to much more than a mostly white boys club get together to talk about nothing in particular.
Here is the decisive insight from Andrew Brown which coheres with what I want to say about GAFCON's gaffe:
"What's new is that no one any longer cares. The split has happened, and it turns out not to matter at all.
More soon-ish.
"At the heart of the liberal revolt against this call to surrender our right to please ourselves lies two things:
1 The first is a determination to claim as a right access to pleasure, and in particular sexual pleasure; and more, to rage against anyone who threatens this right rather like an emotionally incontinent child.
2 The second is an insensitivity to any form of spiritual conflict. There is no sense that there is a real agency of evil that sets itself against the patterns that God has laid down. There is no awareness that evil sets out to twist and deform what God has made good.
So the liberal is certain he or she is doing good by giving affirmative permission for people to do what they like, and calling this ‘love’ – while the conservative or orthodox thinks that he or she is trying to be obedient to a pattern of hierarchical holiness, in which our sacrifice and submission play a part in freeing us from the lure of self indulgent evil.
At the heart of this is a struggle for the Church; a struggle to define Christianity itself.
Who is right?"START ORIGINAL POST: Andrew Brown kind of annoys me because he writes with what seems to me be an unveiled coat of cynicism. However even the most annoying cynic can put his finger on the truth of the matter.
As preparation for my GAFCON gaffe (2) post - draft in process - I refer you to this column of Andrew Brown, entitled "It started as a split over gay clergy. But now the Anglican Communion is dead.'
One prediction he makes is that there will not be another Lambeth Conference. I think he is wrong on that but my prediction is that the next Lambeth Conference will not amount to much more than a mostly white boys club get together to talk about nothing in particular.
Here is the decisive insight from Andrew Brown which coheres with what I want to say about GAFCON's gaffe:
"What's new is that no one any longer cares. The split has happened, and it turns out not to matter at all.
This is in part because the movement of public opinion on sexuality has completely overwhelmed that of church politicians. Congregations by and large have moved on, too. They are part of the public, too. But until very recently the conservative evangelicals in the Church of England lived in a bubble of self-importance, whose boundaries were respected by Rowan Williams. And from within the bubble, the outside world could not be clearly seen. Only, the fight about gay marriage made it apparent to the main body of the church – and to Justin Welby – that their attitudes were repulsive and immoral to the majority of people in this country.
The conservatives still don't really see this."More soon-ish.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
GAFCON's gaffe (1)
The Nairobi Communique repays study. As a contribution I offer the following questions to which I see answers in the Communique.
Who is Anglican?
"we adopted The Jerusalem Statement and Declaration which commits us to biblical faithfulness, and has since provided the framework for renewed Anglican orthodoxy to which we, in all our different traditions – Evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics and Charismatics – are committed. ... Where, in taking a stand for biblical faithfulness, Anglicans have been marginalised or excluded from provincial or diocesan structures, the Primates’ Council has recognised and authenticated them as faithful Anglicans."
What step is required to heal divisions within global Anglicanism?
"Our willingness to submit to the written Word of God and our unwillingness to be in Christian fellowship with those who will not, is clearly expressed in The Jerusalem Statement and Declaration. This means that the divisions in the Anglican Communion will not be healed without a change of heart from those promoting the false gospel, and to that end we pray."
Is an alternative Anglican Communion like structure being set up? Yes, but it is not clear whether this will turn out to be a separate or overlapping structure.
"First, we have resolved to be more than a network. We are an effective expression of faithful Anglicanism and therefore, recognising our responsibilities, we must organise ourselves in a way that demonstrates the seriousness of our objectives. These are threefold.
Has GAFCON resolved a step which could undermine the existing Communion? Yes, because the following statement urges reconsideration of financial support for the Communion.
"Third, we recognise that moving the GFCA on to a new footing will involve making substantial new resources available. We must, therefore, invite provinces, dioceses, mission agencies, local congregations and individuals formally to become contributing members of the GFCA. In particular, we ask provinces to reconsider their support for those Anglican structures that are used to undermine biblical faithfulness and contribute instead, or additionally, to the financing of the GFCA’s on-going needs."
Will cross-jurisdictional episcopal activity cease now that ACNA has been firmly established? No.
"4. We commit ourselves to defend essential truths of the biblical faith even when this defence threatens existing structures of human authority (Acts 5:29). For this reason, the bishops at GAFCON 2013 resolved ‘to affirm and endorse the position of the Primates’ Council in providing oversight in cases where provinces and dioceses compromise biblical faith, including the affirmation of a duly discerned call to ministry. This may involve ordination and consecration if the situation requires.’
5. We commit ourselves to the support and defence of those who in standing for apostolic truth are marginalized or excluded from formal communion with other Anglicans in their dioceses. We have therefore recognized the Anglican Mission in England (AMiE) as an expression of authentic Anglicanism both for those within and outside the Church of England, and welcomed their intention to appoint a General Secretary of AMiE."
There are no gaffes here. Everything is carefully worked out. Alarm bells should be going off in Lambeth Palace about the decisive reshaping of the Communion going on via GAFCON. Wait, they went off and ++Welby hopped on a plane to Nairobi.
But should alarm bells be going off in the Church of England as there is a specific commitment to supporting the development of Anglican churches which are not Church of England churches? On reflection, I think not. The C of E has weathered the development of Anglican churches within England (Free Church of England etc). I wouldn't be worrying if I was part of the Australian Anglican church: their situation (e.g. with independent Bible churches aligned with Sydney) is what it is, irrespective of whether GAFCON came into existence or not. It is difficult to see any specific new development in North American Anglican/Episcopal life emerging from GAFCON II.
What about my own church? I do not see that GAFCON II makes our situation any more anxious than what it already is about how we go about our business, especially in respect of possible changes re human sexuality.
In general terms I think GAFCON is making considerable noise about the iniquities of aspects of Anglican life in Western countries which flows from a superficial, shallow analysis of the relationship between culture and gospel. In a subsequent post I will attempt to demonstrate why GAFCON's communique is simultaneously right and wrong about Anglican churches in the West. That is, GAFCON has made a significant gaffe, but it lies between the lines of the communique. GAFCON itself should be alarmed about the future of Anglican Christianity in the West.
PS No one from Kiwiland has arisen to my challenge at the end of a previous post re GAFCON!
Who is Anglican?
"we adopted The Jerusalem Statement and Declaration which commits us to biblical faithfulness, and has since provided the framework for renewed Anglican orthodoxy to which we, in all our different traditions – Evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics and Charismatics – are committed. ... Where, in taking a stand for biblical faithfulness, Anglicans have been marginalised or excluded from provincial or diocesan structures, the Primates’ Council has recognised and authenticated them as faithful Anglicans."
What step is required to heal divisions within global Anglicanism?
"Our willingness to submit to the written Word of God and our unwillingness to be in Christian fellowship with those who will not, is clearly expressed in The Jerusalem Statement and Declaration. This means that the divisions in the Anglican Communion will not be healed without a change of heart from those promoting the false gospel, and to that end we pray."
Is an alternative Anglican Communion like structure being set up? Yes, but it is not clear whether this will turn out to be a separate or overlapping structure.
"First, we have resolved to be more than a network. We are an effective expression of faithful Anglicanism and therefore, recognising our responsibilities, we must organise ourselves in a way that demonstrates the seriousness of our objectives. These are threefold.
- Proclaiming and contending for the gospel of Jesus Christ. Examples of work we wish to resource are the preparation of convincing theological rebuttals of any false gospel; supporting a network of theological colleges whose students are better oriented to ministry, whose faculties are well-trained, and whose curricula are built on the faithful reading of Scripture.
- Building the fellowship. We need to find new ways of supporting each other in mission and discipleship.
- Authorising and affirming faithful Anglicans who have been excluded by their diocese or province. The main thrust of work here would be devoted to discerning the need for new provinces, dioceses and churches — and then authenticating their ministries and orders as Anglican.
Has GAFCON resolved a step which could undermine the existing Communion? Yes, because the following statement urges reconsideration of financial support for the Communion.
"Third, we recognise that moving the GFCA on to a new footing will involve making substantial new resources available. We must, therefore, invite provinces, dioceses, mission agencies, local congregations and individuals formally to become contributing members of the GFCA. In particular, we ask provinces to reconsider their support for those Anglican structures that are used to undermine biblical faithfulness and contribute instead, or additionally, to the financing of the GFCA’s on-going needs."
Will cross-jurisdictional episcopal activity cease now that ACNA has been firmly established? No.
"4. We commit ourselves to defend essential truths of the biblical faith even when this defence threatens existing structures of human authority (Acts 5:29). For this reason, the bishops at GAFCON 2013 resolved ‘to affirm and endorse the position of the Primates’ Council in providing oversight in cases where provinces and dioceses compromise biblical faith, including the affirmation of a duly discerned call to ministry. This may involve ordination and consecration if the situation requires.’
5. We commit ourselves to the support and defence of those who in standing for apostolic truth are marginalized or excluded from formal communion with other Anglicans in their dioceses. We have therefore recognized the Anglican Mission in England (AMiE) as an expression of authentic Anglicanism both for those within and outside the Church of England, and welcomed their intention to appoint a General Secretary of AMiE."
There are no gaffes here. Everything is carefully worked out. Alarm bells should be going off in Lambeth Palace about the decisive reshaping of the Communion going on via GAFCON. Wait, they went off and ++Welby hopped on a plane to Nairobi.
But should alarm bells be going off in the Church of England as there is a specific commitment to supporting the development of Anglican churches which are not Church of England churches? On reflection, I think not. The C of E has weathered the development of Anglican churches within England (Free Church of England etc). I wouldn't be worrying if I was part of the Australian Anglican church: their situation (e.g. with independent Bible churches aligned with Sydney) is what it is, irrespective of whether GAFCON came into existence or not. It is difficult to see any specific new development in North American Anglican/Episcopal life emerging from GAFCON II.
What about my own church? I do not see that GAFCON II makes our situation any more anxious than what it already is about how we go about our business, especially in respect of possible changes re human sexuality.
In general terms I think GAFCON is making considerable noise about the iniquities of aspects of Anglican life in Western countries which flows from a superficial, shallow analysis of the relationship between culture and gospel. In a subsequent post I will attempt to demonstrate why GAFCON's communique is simultaneously right and wrong about Anglican churches in the West. That is, GAFCON has made a significant gaffe, but it lies between the lines of the communique. GAFCON itself should be alarmed about the future of Anglican Christianity in the West.
PS No one from Kiwiland has arisen to my challenge at the end of a previous post re GAFCON!
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Longley for Anglicans at Mass, Girard is Wright, CofE Wisdom
Pivoting away from whether Anglicans can share communion together, a very interesting article here re the Archbishop of Birmingham (UK), Bernard Longley reflecting out loud on the radical possibility of Anglicans being able to eat the crumbs from under Rome's table.
He confirms my suspicion that Roman theology is open to change so long as an archivist can find a document from the past which points in the direction of change!
At the heart of communion is atonement theology. Someone I have yet to read on atonement is Rene Girard. But Bishop Kelvin Wright of Dunedin has been reading Girard. His review here is a quick entry into the deep world of Girardian theology.
Finally, I note some progress towards refining proposals for women bishops in the Church of England as it heads to its next session of General Synod. I think these are the money paragraphs within documentation which is rather long for a process which keeps telling the reader that simplicity is the aim! The paragraphs are from here which I got to from here which I got to from here. I think these paragraphs look ahead to the period after legislation re women bishops has been past, hence the 'Now that' language in para 11:
"11. Now that the Church of England has admitted women to the episcopate there should
within each diocese be at least one serving bishop, whether the diocesan or a suffragan,
who ordains women to the priesthood. This has a bearing on the considerations that the
Crown Nominations Commission and diocesan bishops will need to take into account
when considering diocesan and suffragan appointments.
12. In addition, dioceses are entitled to express a view, in the statement of needs prepared
during a vacancy in see, as to whether the diocesan bishop should be someone who will
or will not ordain women. In dioceses where the diocesan bishop does not ordain women
he should ensure that a bishop who is fully committed to the ordained ministry of women
is given a role across the whole diocese for providing support for female clergy and their
ministry."
The thought strikes me that we might in ACANZP need some similar legislation or legislative guidance re bishops and the ordaining of persons in same sex partnerships in the future. One piece of wisdom in the C of E proposals is the recognition that ordination in Anglican view sits within a larger theology of episcopacy in Anglican, Roman, and Eastern Orthodox view, and thus it is perfectly reasonable for Anglicans to hold a similar conservatism re ordination-and-women as do our siblings across the world stage. Ditto, I suggest, re same sex partnerships ...
He confirms my suspicion that Roman theology is open to change so long as an archivist can find a document from the past which points in the direction of change!
At the heart of communion is atonement theology. Someone I have yet to read on atonement is Rene Girard. But Bishop Kelvin Wright of Dunedin has been reading Girard. His review here is a quick entry into the deep world of Girardian theology.
Finally, I note some progress towards refining proposals for women bishops in the Church of England as it heads to its next session of General Synod. I think these are the money paragraphs within documentation which is rather long for a process which keeps telling the reader that simplicity is the aim! The paragraphs are from here which I got to from here which I got to from here. I think these paragraphs look ahead to the period after legislation re women bishops has been past, hence the 'Now that' language in para 11:
"11. Now that the Church of England has admitted women to the episcopate there should
within each diocese be at least one serving bishop, whether the diocesan or a suffragan,
who ordains women to the priesthood. This has a bearing on the considerations that the
Crown Nominations Commission and diocesan bishops will need to take into account
when considering diocesan and suffragan appointments.
12. In addition, dioceses are entitled to express a view, in the statement of needs prepared
during a vacancy in see, as to whether the diocesan bishop should be someone who will
or will not ordain women. In dioceses where the diocesan bishop does not ordain women
he should ensure that a bishop who is fully committed to the ordained ministry of women
is given a role across the whole diocese for providing support for female clergy and their
ministry."
The thought strikes me that we might in ACANZP need some similar legislation or legislative guidance re bishops and the ordaining of persons in same sex partnerships in the future. One piece of wisdom in the C of E proposals is the recognition that ordination in Anglican view sits within a larger theology of episcopacy in Anglican, Roman, and Eastern Orthodox view, and thus it is perfectly reasonable for Anglicans to hold a similar conservatism re ordination-and-women as do our siblings across the world stage. Ditto, I suggest, re same sex partnerships ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)