In contrast to scholars like Ian Douglas, subsequently her professor at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as well as a member of the design group for this year’s Lambeth Conference, who propose a vision of globalization which she describes as “diversity globalism”–that is, “characterized by the affirmation of cultural and experiential diversity” and “nothing more clearly defined than general mutual good will”–Hassett writes that conservative Northerners and Southerners have together built various networks into the interconnected structure she labels “accountability globalism”:

This is no veiled anti-globalism or reactionary vision, in which older authority structures of white male Euro-American dominance are reestablished to maintain order in an increasingly complex worldwide organization. Instead, this conservative vision embraces the diversity and complexity of the contemporary world…call[ing] for power to shift away from traditional centers and to locate instead in a worldwide network of church leaders united in their commitment to Anglican orthodoxy. New, global patterns of discipline are envisioned in the service of correction, help, and, above all, accountability among Anglican churches around the globe.

While Anglicans, like Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, have historically organized their ecclesiastical polities around local bishops whose jurisdiction is largely defined by territorial boundaries, Hassett sees the potential of the nascent affinity networks which are manifestations of accountability globalism to radically transform relationships within the church:

[P]articular connections between individuals, parishes, dioceses, and provinces…bypass and even subvert the centralized, nested geographical authority structure of the Communion. It remains to be seen whether the total “realignment” of the Communion into networked clusters of Anglican bodies defined by affinity rather than geographical proximity will come to pass…Today many believe that such networks will become, functionally if not officially, the new organizing structure of the whole Anglican Communion.

Read it all.

Many attempts have been made to address the breach of relationships caused by the setting aside of biblical teaching by some provinces, dioceses, and individual bishops, beginning at Kuala Lumpur in 1997, at the Lambeth Conference in 1998, and culminating recently, after consistent efforts in the intervening years, in the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam in 2007.

Sadly this new draft of An Anglican Covenant is both seriously limited and severely flawed. Whether or not the tool of covenant is the right way to approach the crisis within the Communion, this document is defective and its defects cannot be corrected by piecemeal amendment because they are fundamental. The St. Andrews Draft is theologically incoherent and its proposals unworkable. It has no prospect of success since it fails to address the problems which have created the crisis and the new realities which have ensued.

This document falls in effect into two parts. Sections 1 and 2 mention some matters of faith, but section 3 is in fact the critical section of the document, because this introduces the thought of Churches as being ”˜autonomous-in-communion’. It is on this concept that the proposed resolution of Communion disputes rests.

Read it all.

The Global Anglican Future Conference gathered leaders from around the Anglican Communion for pilgrimage, prayer and serious theological reflection. We are grateful to the Archbishop of Canterbury for engaging with the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration. We wish to respond to some of his concerns.

On faith and false teaching. We warmly welcome the Archbishop’s affirmation of the Jerusalem Statement as positive and encouraging and in particular that it would be shared by the vast majority of Anglicans. We are however concerned that he should think we assume that all those outside GAFCON are proclaiming another gospel. In no way do we believe that we are the only ones to hold a correct interpretation of scripture according to its plain meaning. We believe we are holding true to the faith once delivered to the saints as it has been received in the Anglican tradition. Many are contending for and proclaiming the orthodox faith throughout the Anglican Communion. Their efforts are, however, undermined by those who are clearly pursuing a false gospel. We are not claiming to be a sinless church. Our concern is with false teaching which justifies sin in the name of Christianity. These are not merely matters of different perspectives and emphases. They have led to unbiblical practice in faith and morals, resulting in impaired and broken communion. We long for all orthodox Anglicans to join in resisting this development.

On the uniqueness of Christ. We are equally concerned to hear that ‘the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God’ is ‘not in dispute’ in the Anglican Communion. Leading bishops in The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and even the Church of England have denied the need to evangelise among people of other faiths, promoted and attended syncretistic events and, in some cases, refused to call Jesus Lord and Saviour.

On legitimacy. In the current disorder in the Communion, GAFCON came together as a gathering of lay leaders, clergy and bishops from over 25 countries on the basis of their confession of the common historic Christian faith. They formed a Council in obedience to the word of God to defend the faith and the faithful who are at risk in some Anglican dioceses and congregations.

GAFCON, where the governing structures of many provinces were present, affirmed such a Council of the GAFCON movement as its body to authenticate and recognise confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and congregations and to encourage all Anglicans to promote the gospel and defend the faith.

In their primates and other bishops, the assembly saw a visible connection to the catholic and apostolic Church and the evangelical and catholic faith which many have received from the Church of England and the historic see of Canterbury. It is this faith which we seek to affirm.

On authority. As the Virginia Report notes, in the Anglican tradition, authority is not concentrated in a single centre, but rather across a number of persons and bodies. This Council is a first step towards bringing greater order to the Communion, both for the sake of bringing long overdue discipline and as a reforming initiative for our institutions.

Whilst we respect territoriality, it cannot be absolute. For missionary and pastoral reasons there have long been overlapping jurisdictions in Anglicanism itself ”“ historically in South Africa, New Zealand, the Gulf and Europe. In situations of false teaching, moreover, it has sometimes been necessary for other bishops to intervene to uphold apostolic faith and order.
On discipline. Finally, with regard to the Archbishop’s concern about people who have been disciplined in one jurisdiction and have been accepted in another, we are clear that any such cases have been investigated thoroughly and openly with the fullest possible transparency. Bishops and parishes have been given oversight only after the overseeing bishops have been fully satisfied of no moral impediments to their action.

We enclose a response to the St Andrew’s Draft Covenant. (see the subsequent blog entry)

We assure the Archbishop of Canterbury of our respect as the occupier of an historic see which has been used by God to the benefit of his church and continue to pray for him to be given wisdom and discernment.

Signed

The Most Rev Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria
The Most Rev Justice Akrofi, Primate of West Africa
The Most Rev Emmanuel Kolini, Primate of Rwanda
The Most Rev Valentine Mokiwa, Primate of Tanzania
The Most Rev Benjamin Nzmibi, Primate of Kenya
The Most Rev Henry Orombi, Primate of Uganda
The Most Rev Gregory Venables, Primate of The Southern Cone

July 18 2008

Archbishop of the Province of the West Indies and Diocesan Bishop of The Bahamas, Drexel Gomez, has left The Bahamas to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference, a once-a-decade summit of the world’s Anglican bishops which, will be a tense, closely watched family reunion in Canterbury, England.

During the conference, which got underway on Wednesday, July 16 with sessions through Sunday, August 3, the Anglican church’s future as it relates to homosexuality will be discussed.

The Anglican Communion has been splintering since 2003, when the Episcopal Church consecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

However, to forestall conflict, the organizers of this year’s Lambeth Conference have planned for no resolutions and no votes. Instead, the bishops will meet in small groups, on the theory that they will overcome their divisions by building personal relationships.

The program at the Lambeth Conference has seen the topic moved off Robinson and toward repairing the frayed relationships among bishops. They will spend their days in small group Bible study and discussions on evangelism and the humanitarian work of Anglicans worldwide. Sexuality is the main topic on just one day of the summit.

No resolutions will, reportedly, be adopted as they were at Lambeth a decade ago, when bishops voted that gay relationships were incompatible with Scripture. Instead, the conference will issue “reflections” by the meeting’s end.

Read it all.

…[Dr. Michael] Howell presented a detailed account of the actions of The Episcopal Church that have precipitated a worldwide crisis and the response of the four governing instruments of Anglican Communion.

“The Dar es Salaam Communiqué called the Episcopal Church’s response to Windsor Report inadequate,” Howell said. “It asked for responses from the House of Bishops, but the bishops refused [the Primatial Scheme and call for a moratorium on same-sex blessings]. Then in New Orleans the Archbishop of Canterbury inserted a new process involving the Joint Standing Committee. He refused to call a Primates Meeting and deferred the discussion until the Lambeth Conference, which now is organized so that no resolutions will emerge.” The result of all this, Howell said, is that “GAFCON bishops have lost faith in the structures of the Communion.”

Before the concluding question-and-answer period, three members of the Remain Faithful executive board made brief presentations based on sections of the group’s 25-page position paper, Evidence that Demands a Decision, published in June. Cora Werley, a member of Trinity Church, Fort Worth, discussed revisionist understandings of Jesus Christ and Holy Scripture. David Weaver, a member of St. Alban’s, Arlington, spoke about the polity and origins of The Episcopal Church and the ancient understanding of the diocese as the “organ of union” in the church. Jo Ann Patton, a member of St. Andrew’s, Fort Worth, spoke of the pattern of innovation in The Episcopal Church, seen in its handling of women’s ordination and human sexuality issues, that begins with a violation of canons and progresses to permissiveness and then required practice.

Read it all.

John Chane charges the traditionalists with the crime of certainty. This is a commonplace. It is a corollary of the reigning intellectual culture among the intellectual elites of the West. It is a consequence of the dogmas of post-modernism. It is based on the conviction that there is very little that can be known with certainty, perhaps just a very few “facts” of science, perhaps not even them. The dogma at work here is the ironic post-modern dogma of the certainty of uncertainty. Consequently according to this post-modern dogma, to claim certainty in the area of beliefs and values is immoral and especially so given the huge variety of religious and philosophical options. The high dudgeon of the well educated university grad schooled in the dogmas of post-modernism is reserved for anyone who has the audacity to claim certainty in the area of religion, morals and beliefs. This is seen by people such as John Chane as an example of immorality and trying to force your beliefs on others. People who are morally and religiously certain create alarm. They are in Bishop Chane’s words, dangerous.

This protest against certainty claims the moral high ground and sounds on the surface as though it is based on a generous tolerance. This supposed moral protest in the name of tolerance needs to be unmasked as exactly the opposite, the dismissive and marginalizing rhetoric of the powerful who seek to protect their own agenda from critique on the grounds of any transcendent authority. It is precisely an attempt to force your beliefs on others before any argument is engaged by virtue of the way in which the rules of discussion are established. It is saying, in effect, ” before we talk you must agree that your beliefs and values are the sort of thing that I say they are and I say they can never be more than one opinion among others. If we are to talk, you must give up all your truth claims before you come to the table. With regard to the rules of the table, I will be the final referee.”

Read it all.

Dr Williams is careful to convey that he takes the concerns of those who attended GAFCON seriously. Our conversation is peppered with references to these “serious concerns”; but GAFCON’s Jerusalem Declaration, and its inherent attack on his authority, is clearly a significant source of his frustration.

And it may be this emotion that leads him to dwell on the potential for division within the GAFCON movement. “It is not as if it is a single-issue thing. There are motivations and perspectives even there, which pull in slightly different directions, and, I think, depend on different visions in the Church.

“Someone like the Archbishop of Sydney, whom I greatly respect as a theologian, has a very clearly worked out theology of the Church, which is much more federal and locally independent. I am not sure that would be exactly the theology you would find in some of the traditionalist American bishops. I will watch to see how some of the theological discussions evolve.”

He insists that, despite the Jerusalem Declaration, the Anglican Communion will still continue in some form, albeit weakened. “The kind of fellowship we will have may be different, less immediate. That is hard. That is a loss, and there will always be a sense of loss and not feeling all right. But the reality is: we are where we are. We may be less obviously at one for a few years, but that doesn’t let us off the obligation to keep listening to each other.,,,”

Read it all.

A secondary division chipping away at the Anglicans involves the consecration of women bishops. This is more of a problem for the English “mothership” (known as the Church of England), which has signaled that it will press ahead with legislation to introduce women bishops, despite the objections of hundreds of clergymen.

“This is something that is troubling the Church of England, though it’s less of a fight in the wider Anglican communion,” says Giles Fraser, a London vicar, who notes that about 20 women bishops will attend Lambeth. “The issue of homosexuality by comparison is a bare-knuckle brawl.”

Few analysts expect an Anglican reconciliation anytime soon. “The church is already fragmented,” says Mr. Hobson. “The Evangelicals don’t really believe in the authority of a liberal archbishop and leadership. It’s hard to see how it could reunite.”

Mr. Fraser adds that the only way of keeping the Anglicans together “is to have a greater degree of subsidiarity so that each province is able to make theological decisions for [itself].”

Read it all.

{Philip] Jenkins pointed out that of the Anglican Communion’s followers, around 20 million are in England and another 20 million are in Nigeria.

“So if the head of the Nigerian church is one of the leading supporters of GAFCon, which he is, then GAFCon becomes very important,” Jenkins explained.

GAFCon’s action fueled talk of a schism within the church, but officials and church members played that down.

“You’re jumping to conclusions. There is no schism,” said Neva Rae Fox, spokeswoman for the Episcopal Church, whose presiding bishop is Katharine Jefferts Schori — a woman.

Cook said a schism would be “disastrous” and officials would work to avoid it.

“Whichever side split from Canterbury would loose its Anglican identity… I think Anglicans from the archbishop down are willing to work their hardest to prevent a schism,” he said.

Jenkins was less optimistic that the Anglican Communion would come away intact from its many crises.

“On a global scale, it could lead to the creation of an alternative Anglican Communion, while in Britain, a lot of clergy belonging to the church will leave and go to, for example, the Roman Catholic church.

“So there would be two separate schisms,” he said.

Read it all.

Overseeing the get-together is Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the Anglican spiritual leader. As the “first among equals,” he has no authority to force a compromise. Still, he bears the heavy burden of trying to keep the centuries-old communion together.

“In my view, the split has already taken place,” said David Steinmetz, an expert in Christian history at Duke Divinity School in Charlotte, North Carolina. “The interesting question ”” still unanswered ”” is how wide and deep will it grow?”

The Anglican Communion is a fellowship of churches that trace their roots to the missionary work of the Church of England. The Episcopal Church is the Anglican body in the U.S.

It is the third-largest group of churches in the world, behind Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, and is struggling with the same issues facing many denominations: How should Christians interpret what the Bible says about homosexuality, salvation and other issues?

Read it all

Archbishop Williams, hoping to keep clashes and controversy to a minimum at the three-week Lambeth summit, decided not to invite Robinson, disappointing the U.S. bishop.

Robinson, who will still be coming to Canterbury to meet fellow clerics on the margins of the conference, believed clashes will be few and far between at Lambeth.

Forecasting it will end with a typically fudged Anglican consensus, he said “It will drive the press crazy. There will be no resolutions, no proclamations, no lines drawn in the sand.”

After congregating in Canterbury on Wednesday, the bishops y head into a four-day biblical retreat away from the eyes of the media. They launch into a full conference agenda next week.

Read it all.

There is much that suggests I am wrong. In the past few years leading up to Lambeth 2008, there has been incredible tension building. Many declarations have been made, many reflecting egos in need of power rather than gospel imperatives. Threats, intimidation, bullying and attempts to control people’s lives have dominated the pre-Lambeth landscape.

But now that the conference is upon us I am sensing a new determination from Canadian bishops and others that I have spoken with around the Communion. There is a resolve to make this work. It is simply too important a time in the life of the Church to get bogged down in rhetoric and motions. Not only are the bishops saying that they owe it to the church ”” the whole people of God ”” but they are also recognizing in their prayers and hearts that the call from Christ is to faithfulness rather than to worldly concepts of winning and losing. Those who have deliberately chosen to boycott this conference will not succeed in destroying it.

Lambeth is about building new relationships, about listening and learning and this will happen with or without those who have stayed away. The design of small Bible study groups (about eight) moving to larger groups (aboout 40) for conversation is a brilliant plan that creates an environment fertile for growth.

Read it all. If Archdeacon Fendley is really interested in conversation as he says, he could start by characterizing those who disagree with him fairly. Those who have chosen out of conscience and conviction not to come to Lambeth are not seeking to destroy Lambeth–indeed I would challenge him to cite an instance where they say they wish to do so. In any event, read it all.

According to Archbishop [Peter] Akinola, the last major meeting that considered the gay issue was the Primates’ Meeting in Tanzania in February 2007. During the meeting, the Episcopal Church was given “a last chance to clarify unequivocally and adequately their stand by 30th September, 2007”.

“Strangely, before the deadline, and before the primates could get the opportunity of meeting to assess the adequacy of the response of TEC and in a clear demonstration of unwillingness to follow through our collective decisions, which for many of us was an apparent lack of regard for the Primates, Lambeth Palace in July 2007 issued invitations to TEC bishops, including those who consecrated Gene Robinson, to attend the Lambeth 2008 conference.

“At this point, it dawned upon us, regrettably, that the Archbishop of Canterbury was not interested in what matters to us, in what we think or in what we say,” the Gafcon gathering heard.

The upshot is that if African bishops are angry, it is because of Canterbury’s and the West’s insensitivity and apparent contempt of their collective decisions.

Now, I am going to speak to you about the eight big Challenges we face in the Advanced Model Global Era

This era has Challenges that can be put into 3 words:

Integrity – We need to realize that integrity is a rare commodity today. Personal integrity and the faithfulness of the faith lived out must mark our Christianity.

Credibility-today’s world contains immense intellectual challenges. We must learn to speak to the issues with the credible persuasion that is worthy of our Lord.

Civility – Everyone is now everywhere. How should we live with our differences? We must live out of love for Christ and speak the truth in love, which is our duty as Christians.

I am going to talk about 8 challenges that I see as the most important today.

Challenge 1: We must face up to the grand cultural challenges of our age.
Two important words for today are choice and change. They are the essence of our world. Not all of the choices and engagement are hype. The first thing people look for in most situations today is freedom of choice and the promise of change.

First, you have this huge shift from the industrial age to the information age. Globalization is the expansion of human relationships interconnected at a genuinely global level. An example is the spread of multi-capitalism: being able to buy or sell in a stock market regardless of the time of day. If our market is closed, we can buy and sell in Japan, et cetera. This abundance of choice most affects communication. The impact of globalization is akin to the invention of the wheel or the invention of writing. It has made a profound impact on identity, economic forces, and governments. The world is not just accelerating, but accelerating and living at speed of light. Faith is profoundly affected by this change.

A second factor in this is the arrogance of the West.

Read it all.

What was GAFCON about?

We determined to start a spiritual movement centred on Christ as the head of the Church and the Bible as the basis of our faith while accepting the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We had both the clergy and zealous lay Christians. It is a movement that will yield results similar to the East African Revival of the Balokole movement within the Anglican Church.

When will you implement GAFCON’s resolutions?

We have been practising all these resolutions like opposing sexual pervasions, using the Bible as the basis of our faith, evangelism, accepting the guidance of the Holy Spirit and maintaining the lordship of Jesus.

Besides homosexuality, what other practices set you apart from the Lambeth group?

Homosexuality is one of the symptoms of the disease. The disease is rejecting the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit by doing things on basis of corrupted human wisdom, leading to false doctrines. These people believe Jesus is not the only way to heaven.

How big is the Anglican community that subscribes to the GAFCON resolutions?

We comprise the biggest percentage of the worldwide Anglican community: 40 million out of 77 million Anglicans. One thousand one hundred-forty eight delegates representing 25 countries attended.

Read it all.

GAFCON has been viewed in numerous media reports as an anti-homosexual movement. Is that the case?

In the media there is usually a desire to boil everything down to a couple of attention-grabbing sound bites. And sex and money are the two things that grab people’s attention the fastest. Certainly there is a factor of human sexuality among the issues that are before the Anglican Communion. But they are not primary. They are secondary at best. The primary issues have to do with other questions: Who is Jesus Christ? What did he really do? Was his death really necessary? Did he really rise from the dead? And what authority does he have over men and women today?

And then there is the issue of Holy Scripture. One American bishop has been widely quoted as saying, “The Church wrote the Bible and the Church can rewrite the Bible.” That point of view would represent a number of TEC bishops, although most might be wise enough not to say it so clearly.

On the other hand we have the New Testament scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is God-breathed.” There’s a world of difference between those two statements. A big part of the Anglican Communion has chosen to line up with the Episcopal Church, believing that Jesus is optional and that the Bible can be reformulated to suit the culture. That said, it should surprise no one that difficulties arise in determining what is a proper sexual standard.

Read it all.

BJK: What does GAFCON mean for the Lambeth Conference? What about the Covenant process?

GR+: The question, in my mind, and I am speaking as an individual, is how much value does the Windsor Report hold today? Two years after General Convention 2006, where we failed miserably to respond to the Windsor Report, in an adequate fashion, (B003 was not an adequate response by any means), a number of the signatories from the House of Bishops, stated they didn’t intend to comply by it. By the recent actions of the three bishops in California, you can see that is the case. They have already given the green light to their clergy to perform same-sex blessings, without the consent of the wider Communion. Obviously, they don’t intend to comply. If TEC has no intention to comply with the Windsor Report then whatever input TEC has in the Covenant process is going to be just as miserable. By the time the Covenant is agreed upon, if it is ever agreed upon by TEC, it will not be the same instrument that it started out to be. Therefore, I don’t see any value in the Windsor Report or the Covenant at this point. I know the draft will be discussed at General Convention, and I am a deputy, as I was in 2006. After seeing how the convention dealt with the Windsor Report, I can’t imagine that the Covenant will get a better reception.

BJK: What is the next step for the Diocese of Western Louisiana and Grace Church?

GR+: Our Diocesan Convention meets in October and I sit on the executive council of the diocese. The Bishop has told me personally that after Lambeth, the executive council will meet in August. He will then give us his opinion concerning where things are and the options we have for the diocese. It is his desire that IF the diocese chooses to do something that we do it as a whole. I would also prefer that. Being realistic, whatever decision the diocese makes, if we decide to move as a diocese, there will be certain clergy, parishes, and laypeople who will want to remain in TEC. Likewise, if we don’t move as a diocese, there will be clergy, parishes, and lay people who don’t want to stay. That will be a reality after October. The bishop is wise enough, and intelligent enough, to know that is going to happen. No matter what happens at the convention in October, someone will not be happy. There is going to be movement, but the question is where.

Read it all (hat tip: Brad Drell).

The answers the fellowship develops to the practical questions raised above in relation to the “how?” question are vital. They will also likely in large part depend on the actions of Lambeth and the Instruments. The ball is therefore now in the court of Lambeth and the Archbishop of Canterbury. They must consider how they will relate to GAFCON and whether they can offer a more constructive and truly conciliar way of addressing the questions we face. In particular these are the urgent questions concerning reform of the Instruments, the need for an Anglican Covenant, and the necessity (perhaps the fruit of the Windsor Continuation Group) for a clearer and more decisive Communion response to those bishops and churches who continue determinedly to reject the Communion’s repeated requests for restraint and repentance since the last Lambeth conference.

Instant reactions to GAFCON are, sadly, in our day and age necessary and inevitable. This is especially so when its proponents, warning against delay, call on people and congregations to take a stand and make what they describe as fundamental choices in the face of what they portray as a false gospel. There are, however, high levels of fear, anger and past hurts on all sides in the current climate and the power of the existing political alliances and prejudices surrounding GAFCON cannot be denied. These factors ”“ together with the complexity of the current situation – mean it is vitally important that GAFCON’s proposals and reactions to them do not get so fixed that they fuel further breaches in bonds of affection. All of us””from individuals and parishes being urged to sign up in support of GAFCON to the hundreds of Anglican bishops gathering later this month at Lambeth””need time for prayerful discernment as to what God is saying and doing in these tumultuous times and what part GAFCON plays in his reshaping of Anglicanism.

Read it all.

(1) Nowhere in the lecture did he refer to the Windsor Report and to conciliar authorities. No reference was made to the instruments of unity or to Canterbury as the focus of unity. Missing was also the quadrant-demarcation of churches and power blocs in Communion’s “Cold War” (to borrow Cameron’s allusion to NATO). His approach in mapping the Communion future is strikingly different from that undertaken by Fulcrum and ACI, which by and large offer a structural and conciliar solution to the present Communion crisis.

(2) The above is underlined by the astonishing way Cameron reinterpreted and defended the Anglican Covenant. The idea of Covenant was first proposed in the Windsor Report under the heading “Canon Law and Covenant” (Windsor Report, 113-120). The sequence and relation between the two are important: “Canon Law” first, then “Covenant”. The Windsor Report has in mind that the Covenant would be a “Communion law” that “would make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the churches of the Communion. The Covenant could deal with: the acknowledgement of common identity; the relationships of communion; the commitments of communion; the exercise of autonomy in communion; and the management of communion affairs (including disputes). (Windsor Report, 118)”

In sharp contrast, Cameron (intentionally?) dismissed the juridical and administrative language…

Read it all.

Going through a stack of books on the coffee table in his office, the Rev. Briane Turley finds a copy of “The Next Christendom.”

Written in 2002, it predicts that Christians from non-Western countries will soon outnumber believers in North America and Europe.

When that happens, the book concludes, it will trigger a religious upheaval as big as the Reformation.

“I’ve seen it coming true,” Turley says, “right before my eyes.”

He recently came back from the Global Anglican Future Conference, or GAFCON, in Jerusalem. Being white and Western, Turley found himself conspicuously in the minority.

“This is where the leaders of the church in Africa stood up and said, ‘OK, we’re taking our place at the table now.'”

Read it all.

Meanwhile the Bishop of Newcastle, Bishop Brian Farran, who lives right next to the Sydney Diocese says Archbishop Peter Jensen has created difficulties for his relationship with the rest of the Australian church. I asked him what are those difficulties.

Brian Farran: Well I think it’s particularly difficult within the province of New South Wales where the Archbishop is the Metropolitan. I think there’s in fact emerging as he has, probably by default, as a principal leader of the GAFCON movement, and their statement in which they really encourage the formation of what seems like a church within a church. I think it would be difficult for him to come back and operate as if nothing has happened, and that the relationships that we have normally, through say our Primate with the Archbishop of Canterbury, that they’re going to be a bit muddied by his relationship with this secondary movement.

Stephen Crittenden: I’ll come to the Archbishop of Canterbury in a moment, but presumably there would be some conservative Anglicans in every diocese in Australia who might want to join this new Confessing movement, but also many Anglicans in Sydney who’d like to escape it. I mean is this the time when some kind of Episcopal oversight needs to be offered to alienating Anglicans in Sydney?

Brian Farran: Well I personally don’t agree with alternative forms of Episcopal oversight, so I’m finding myself rather constrained in all of this. Certainly I’ve been in contact with some of the Anglicans in Sydney who sometimes flee up to Newcastle actually for a dose of liturgical renewal, and they themselves have said that they’re totally disappointed that the Sydney bishops are not going to be at Lambeth, and they really do feel abandoned in that. So I guess there will be people in Sydney who are looking for some kind of insight from Lambeth and some follow-on.

Stephen Crittenden: Isn’t the primacy of the Archbishop of Canterbury actually ended in that these people will be giving their allegiance to apparently a new conciliar body from which they will take their lead?

Brian Farran: This is one of the problems that the Archbishop of Canterbury has signaled in the press release that he’s issued after GAFCON. He’s indicated for example, that the GAFCON’s initiative in establishing a sort of primational council of some of those African Archbishops, will in fact blur the role of our own primates meetings within the Anglican communion, and I’m not sure how GAFCON’s going to operate, because we’ve had these four very significant instruments of unity within the Anglican community, which includes of course the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates’ meetings, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Lambeth Conference. And now there seems to be a rival organisation being established who may well actually be instrumental in developing bishops to move into other dioceses which they regard as unorthodox.

Read it all and peruse the other two GAFCON segments here and there.

These difficult questions are at the heart of the entire present struggle over the soul of Anglicanism. Orthodox critics of GAFCON such as Williams and Wright””along with theologians such as Chris Seitz, Ephraim Radner, Philip Turner, and primates such as Drexel Gomez of the West Indies””argue that sufficient answers cannot come from ad hoc interventions and councils. They must come instead by reforming Anglicanism from within. These critics stake their hopes on the proposed Anglican Covenant, due to be discussed at Lambeth next week, the principal goal of which is to arrive at a mutually agreed-upon method for deciding disputed matters with reference to substantive and coherent theological criteria.

Unfortunately, it is not clear that Lambeth and the other existing structures of Anglicanism can accomplish any such thing. Many hope so, against great odds, and not a few continue to work and pray that it might. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, one of the Church of England’s leading thinkers, said at GAFCON that Anglicanism, if it is to be an effective confessing church, needs also to be a “conciliar church . . . to have councils at every level, including worldwide, that are authoritative, that can make decisions that stick.” Orthodox Anglicans going to Lambeth agree; that is why they are going, and that is why they have placed their hopes in the proposed Anglican Covenant. If they do not succeed, the GAFCON fellowship will almost assuredly step in to fill the gap, as a new confessional church in the evangelical Anglican tradition. Anglicanism will not be what it used to be, and some will argue that it no longer genuinely exists.

It might be too much to say that a good Lambeth could save Anglicanism from such a fate, but it is probably not too much to say that a Lambeth gone wrong could render such schism unavoidable. Certainly it is not too much to predict that faithful Anglicans everywhere will be working, watching, and praying for guidance.

Read it all.

In his watershed analysis of the rapidly emerging Christian movements in the Global South titled The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, religious sociologist Philip Jenkins discerned that, regardless of the paternalistic interpretations that Christian observers in Europe and North America may cling to, “the emerging Christian world will be anchored in the Southern continents.” A careful scholar, Jenkins relied upon the best available data while weaving his thesis. And it is for this reason that his work serves as one of the premiere harbingers of what has, seven years after he wrote, come to pass. Those of us familiar with Jenkins work who attended the GAFCON in Jerusalem were very much aware that the event served, in many respects, as a sign that the future Jenkins so accurately described is now present with us.

GAFCON was a uniquely global experience. During my week in Jerusalem as I served as a delegate or “pilgrim” to the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), I often reflected on Jenkins’ analysis. Individuals whose skin is darker than mine dominated every meeting, every worship service, and every foray into the Israeli countryside. Organized and orchestrated primarily by Christian leaders representing third-world Anglican Provinces, the conference and its place in history should not be underestimated by revisionist or orthodox Christians. The nearly 300 bishops representing 25 nations who turned out for the gathering oversee more than half the Communion’s adherents and perhaps more than 2/3rds the active Communion. Much more than a demonstration of support for orthodox Anglicans in North America, GAFCON is emblematic of a Global South Christianity come of age.

The ironies surrounding GAFCON’s issuance of its highly controversial Jerusalem Declaration are manifold. Consider, for example, the movement’s affinities with liberation theology. Phillip Berryman recognized liberation theology in broadest terms as “an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor’s suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor.”

For decades, Western liberals saw in the Global South a tool and an ally to help advance their radical social/political agenda. The third world churches received their “generous subsidies” and were, they were certain, duty bound to embrace Marxist inspired liberation theologies that would abet their own world view. A remarkably paternalistic class, these same liberals now feel betrayed by a Global South Christianity who have rejected Marx and have expressed keen desire to maintain a conservative theological position. Recent commentary regarding the “GAFCON rebels” published by Anglicans in the United Kingdom and North America indicates that the gloves have come off and that a head-on collision between what remains of well-monied Western revisionist Christians and the economically poor, disfranchised emerging Southern orthodox is inevitable.

Why, precisely, have Global South Christians rejected Western ecclesiological neopatrimonialisms? In effect, at Jerusalem the South declared that the colonialist methods of maintaining the Anglican Communion represent a catastrophic failure. Heretical Western bishops openly teach with impunity that Christ was a sinner and that he was not raised from the grave while theologically faithful bishops like Dr. William Jackson Cox are publicly disciplined and then jettisoned from the church. All the while, the Archbishop of Canterbury observes what is happening in silence or, on occasion, calls on Anglicans to continue “listening” or to participate in “gracious conversation.”

Lean southerners have been “listening” to their well-fed, tony neighbors for a long time and as a matter of courtesy will continue to do so in the future. But as Episcopal Church leaders deposed priests by the score and drove biblically-focused congregations from their buildings, the Global South bishops grew steadfastly aware that these calls for gracious conversation, for bringing their “exuberance to the larger party” while their deadlines for clarity were being ignored were red herrings, obfuscatory techniques designed to buy time and hopefully fatigue the opposition.

The Western scheme has failed. Now fully empowered, well-educated, and shrewd, our third-world counterparts are serving notice that they are no longer willing to sit idly while Lambeth continues to engineer decadal stall tactics ( e.g., boundless gracious discussion sessions) designed ultimately to protect the worldly interests of an aggressively anti-orthodox American Episcopal Church.

The Western liberals seem incapable of recognizing the rapidly shifting paradigm occurring in their midst. Their ears now appear dull, their eyes dim (Isaiah 6). Having sloshed through their plans for the colonials over cocktails, few seem all that interested in listening to the narratives of their Global South neighbors. Few seem inclined to consider even the stories of martyrdom that many in Africa and Asia are able to share. Western liberals now find themselves in the unenviable position of explaining why they are unable to abide the third world’s critique and the liberation they discovered in the Gospel. They must now find ways to explain to them that they are not, indeed, the oppressors.

Whether they are heard or no, the economically poor of the third world have broken their shackles and will, in time, play a dominant role in the Anglican Communion. As Jenkins predicted, Christendom is increasingly finding its anchor in the Global South. Following GAFCON, it now seems plausible that, in due course, it will find its compass there as well.

“The conference proceeded with the spotlight of world media upon it, it was not done in a corner. Its conclusions cannot be dismissed as the work of only a few.”

“The seven primates are significant leaders within the Anglican communion and they approach this work with appropriate seriousness and solemnity.” Dr [Peter] Jensen said.

The Archbishop says the lack of restraint by some revisionist church leaders in North America and the indecisiveness in response to it has made their task more urgent.

“No good can come from questioning the legitimacy of these men or their clear commitment to the church’s mission. Rather we must commend their willingness to provide clear leadership and to help bring order to this chaos.”

Read it all.

Leaders of the adherents of the Anglican faith need to stop embarrassing their flock. They are also making the Holy Trinity they listen to look confused and opening their communion to ridicule.

Come July 16, some Anglicans will be at the Lambeth Conference. Two weeks ago, another lot was in Jerusalem-Jordan-Jerusalem participating in the Global Anglican Future Conference, GOFCON, which formed the Fellowship of Confessing Christians.

The group meeting at Lambeth watched and listened. The… [GAFCON] lot will now do likewise. Each holds, not viciously so far, theological and canonical sledgehammers over the Scriptures’ stand on a juicy subject: sex.

Read it all.

GAFCON was a good thing. Other complexions have, of course, been put on it, but the conference in Jerusalem transformed disaffection from the Anglican Communion into a renewed commitment to its core, which is the love of Christ. Against the expectations of many, the week was not spent fulminating against gays. Bishop Robinson’s name was not heard. Clearly, dissatisfaction with liberal developments in ethics and theology, principally in the United States, had brought many of the participants to Jerusalem. But, once settled in Jerusalem, the participants spent too much of their time worshipping God and making their pilgrimage for GAFCON to be written off as a godless mistake.

Read it all.

Now to the GAFCON Communiqué: Most of it I can wholeheartedly support though I hardly have space in this ENewsletter to discuss it at length. Briefly let me say that The Jerusalem Declaration (the fourteen points in the document) affirms much of what I understand as basic Christianity as Anglicans have received it. As for the call for a North American Province to align the various judicatories of the Episcopalian diaspora, it is a noble and necessary endeavor, though it does not address any particular need that we in South Carolina have. That is, I rejoice that these brothers and sisters who have long looked for validation as “continuing” Anglicans are now recognized by important Provinces on the world stage when Canterbury, for various reasons, has been unable to do so. This recognition I can support even while I am grateful that we here in the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina remain in full communion with Canterbury, that most historic and prominent See of Anglicanism. In fact this next week at the invitation of Archbishop, Rowan Williams, I travel to England””first to Exeter for what is termed the “Hospitality Week”. It is especially fitting to be assigned there. You may remember that the Diocese of Exeter at its Synod stood in solidarity with us when the first consent process for my election was ruled null and void. Along with this the Dean of Exeter was in Charleston this past January and February, serving as cantor at the evensong service the night before my consecration and as part of the procession at the joyous event the next day. From Exeter Allison and I will go to Canterbury for the Lambeth Conference from July 16th””August 3rd.

I am participating in both GAFCON and Lambeth because I believe it will take both the outside and the inside tack to move the Anglican Communion towards its God-given purpose and mission in the 21st Century. I think it is fair to say that without the likes of both George Whitefield and Joseph Butler pushing their wares in a prior century Anglicanism would not only be pastorally the weaker, but ecclesiologically the smaller. Or to use another historical allusion, without The Confession of Augsburg there would have been no Council of Trent. Institutions do not usually correct or readily adapt their structures or missions without a great deal of leverage, and GAFCON””regardless of whatever else it is””is clearly leverage.

Read it all.

2) The meeting, set last week in Jerusalem, was a great outpouring of Anglican love and traditional teaching. Check out the “Jerusalem Document” on the CANA website or the ADV website. It is a concise document which spells out what you and I have always believed but was yanked away from us by radical professors and church leaders: Primacy of Scripture; Jesus as Incarnate and the only way to salvation; the Creeds said without crossing our fingers at certain phrases; regular use of the BCP & Ordinal (Apostolic Succession); holy living including financial and earth stewardship, reaching out with the Gospel message, and sexual behavior that honors God.

3) There were actually over 1,200 participants, including just over 300 bishops. Interestingly enough, the bishops from North America included CANA, Uganda, Kenya, Southern Cone, Rwanda, Reformed Episcopal Church, Anglican Province in America, some bishops of Continuing Anglican groups from USA and Canada, and sitting bishops of TEC (Love, McPherson, Beckwith, Ackerman, Iker, Jim Adams, Schofield, Lawrence, Scriven.) All were excited to be there and supportive of the Document.

Read it all.

But GAFCON is no limp compromise. The declaration rejected bishops and churches that proclaim a “false gospel” in which “all religions offer equal access to God” and “a variety of sexual preferences and immoral behavior” are treated as human rights. Because existing “instruments” that unite and lead Anglicanism have failed, GAFCON stated, the crisis requires “realignment.”

The new movement will be led by a council of the primates (bishops) who head conservative Anglican provinces, starting with Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, West Africa, southernmost South America, and probably Tanzania, with hopes to enlist other nations. Australia’s large Sydney diocese is solidly on board. Right after GAFCON, nearly 800 Church of England clergy and laity met in London to discuss joining the movement, which is backed by England’s prominent, Pakistan-born Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali.

Dramatically ignoring Anglican tradition against overlapping jurisdictions, GAFCON hierarchs will jointly establish a new North American province to rally some 300 dissenting congregations that recently quit The Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada, plus hundreds more from earlier breakaways. These fellowships will include those who both allow and forbid women clergy.

The spiritual leader of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, personifies what GAFCON considers an outdated “colonial structure.” GAFCON acknowledged Canterbury as “an historic see” but added, “We do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury.”

Read it all.

So far, the help and order needed in this matter is coming from the southern hemisphere. Ironically, the very churches established by colonial Anglican missionaries have provided clarity and leadership. They understand that our present structures are unable to cope and that taking rose-coloured glasses to have tea with the Archbishop of Canterbury will not help either. Those who have stepped forward are primates, senior leaders of our denomination, with huge responsibilities in their own churches. They don’t need to do it, but they are prepared to do it for Western Christians who have lost the plot.

I can understand some in Australia will say, what has this to do with me? That has never been the way of the Anglican communion. We rejoice with those who rejoice, mourn with those who mourn and seek to restore those who have strayed. Our “broad” church should never encompass those who deny basic Christian teaching. I don’t expect any Australian church-goer to notice changes here because of Gafcon. These events are being played out on the world stage. But we too have our part to play in this Anglican renewal and the first step is to recognise the crisis and that Gafcon is part of the solution. The past two weeks have been among the most spiritually invigorating of my life. I have seen great generosity of spirit.

Americans, from a proud nation with a proud history, have been willing to genuinely reach out to their African, Asian and South American brothers and sisters and say: “Help.” No hint of paternalistic or racist attitudes. The “Church of England” has come full circle.

Read it all.