The sad impression of the last year is that those most committed to GAFCON and FCA are determined to press ahead with their vision and, convinced by their own rhetoric and rightness, to ignore or dismiss those who are unwilling to follow their lead. NEAC5 demonstrated widespread unease about aspects of GAFCON and FCA but no serious attempt has been made to address these by those who have now proceeded to launch FCA in the UK. The majority of evangelical bishops remain at best cautious or sceptical about this development but there appears to have been no attempt to consult with them or take on board their concerns.
At NEAC5 it was clear that there were those already convinced about GAFCON and FCA ”“ many of them having been in Jerusalem or close to those who were ”“ but that the majority was not as yet persuaded. The presentations on the day from GAFCON supporters preached to and roused the converted but left many others at best unconvinced and at worst further alienated and concerned. Rather than learning from their failure to win a majority on that day, FCA appears to have continued with the same conviction that passionate selling of its diagnosis and itself as the remedy will be sufficient to win people over. It does not appear to recognise that this rallying of the core troops in fact often has the opposite effect on those looking in from outside or the margins. It appears unable or unwilling to understand why some of us who have so much in common with its commitments feel unable to throw ourselves whole-heartedly into its plans yet long to find a way of engaging constructively with them rather than simply opposing them.
It may be that FCA’s calling is to launch now as a small tight-knit fellowship of the whole-heartedly committed who feel most alienated by developments in the Church of England and Anglican Communion over recent years (including women’s leadership) and who want to form a body of the like-minded on how to pursue their concerns politically. In that case it is clearly not the place for me and the only question is whether it can relate to people like me in a constructive rather than destructive manner.
“The sad impression of the last year is that those most committed to GAFCON and FCA are determined to press ahead with their vision and, convinced by their own rhetoric and rightness, to ignore or dismiss those who are unwilling to follow their lead.” This statement, along with all the other concerns he mentions, it seems to me, could just as easily be made about the broad revisionist movement in the Anglican Community.
One committed agenda can ultimately provoke the identical sort of response from the other side. I am not suggesting that two wrongs make a right, but the complete inability, or refusal of the instruments of Communion to discipline those who provoked the current crisis in the first place — and their seeming paralysis now have certainly not helped matters. I also think that it’s a historical fact that when one minority party’s committed agenda is allowed to proceed against the expressed will of the larger body, and nothing meaningful is done to stop it, a crisis of leadership inevitably ensues and it’s not unusual that eventually the majority will rise up in response. This is exactly what is happening in this instance. FCA did not start this crisis. FCA is a completely understandable response to two things: (1) the determination of the revisionists to realize their agenda, and (2) the complete failure of current Communion leadership to respond to the advance of the minority agenda over the clearly expressed will of the majority.
My own sense is that now matters have moved completely beyond the control of the “Anglican establishment.” It’s out of their hands now — perhaps it always was. In any case, the vast majority of the world’s Anglicans, who still hold to the historic understanding of the Christian faith, are finding new ways to connect and work together. At this point the old Anglican establishment has only three options: (1) lead, (2) follow, or (3) get out of the way.
[blockquote]”…there appears to have been no attempt to consult with them or take on board their concerns.”[/blockquote]
Funny, I was thinking the same thing – but in reverse.
😉
RE: “The sad impression of the last year is that those most committed to GAFCON and FCA are determined to press ahead with their vision and, convinced by their own rhetoric and rightness, to ignore or dismiss those who are unwilling to follow their lead.”
Right.
And the same with the ACI and Communion Partners and Fulcrum. I’m not certain why “pressing ahead” is a bad thing on either side. That’s what one does when one sets a course — press ahead.
The two groups of conservatives have decided on very different — and sometimes opposing — strategies. And that’s that.
I’m not certain why either the FCA/GAFCON/ACNA or the ACI/CommunionPartners/Fulcrum should be constantly looking behind them saying “are you lot sure you’ve not going to be coming along?”
And boy do I see that on both sides.
Fulcrum, NEAC, CEEC, etc., are all hopelessly compromised institutionalists. These are simply a continuation of the same people that chased out the Methodists.
Sarah,
If GAFCON were proclaiming a new global denominational alignment (as, I gather, John Rodgers argued at the time) I would agree with you, but – so far – what it has endorsed is a local realignment to address specific provincial needs.
That being the case, surely both conservative wings will continue to express a desire to draw the other wing back/forward to their side in order to keep the global alignment as wide as possible. Whether that’s a good or bad thing depends on one feels the Communion should be ordered, but is the desire so strange?
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
There’s an awful lot of analysis before the meeting has even occurred. Offhand, the presentation representing Nigeria looked good. It emphasized the need to do missionary work within the UK, by the Church in the UK. What have Fulcrum and Goddard got against that?
A large part of his piece expresses his uneasiness about working with those who don’t accept women in orders. He blames FCA for this, but it is more Fulcrum’s problem than FCA’s. The male priesthood/presbyterate was the accepted Christian norm for nearly 2000 years and still is for the large majority of Christians worldwide. Why does he have a problem with recognizing this and working with people who hold the traditional view? Some of the organizing bishops agree with him on this, for instance Nazir-Ali. If Nazir-Ali can deal constructively with people who disagree on this issue, why can’t Fulcrum? And if Goddard cannot stand in favor of honoring the scruples of those who disagree on this issue, whom does he expect to stand to honor his scruples when those who hold to this tradition are gone?
It was said:
[blockquote]FCA’s total and apparently unreserved and unquestioning commitment to the creation of ACNA, the new American province, fuels concerns that it too will ultimately embrace such a path. Current denials are thus viewed by many either as a sign of its duplicity or, more charitably, its lack of self-awareness as to the consequences of its current stance. It must not be forgotten that at its launch the Anglican Communion Network was rejecting of separatism and reportedly most American Anglican Council (AAC) members remain within TEC.[/blockquote]
I think those in the UK should be cautious extrapolating from the US experience just as those in the US must be cautious about applying their own experiences to the UK situation.
In the US, by the time that the Network and similar groups formed in response to the event in 2003, the revisionists were firmly in control of TEC, and I think due in some part to cultural differences and the differences of not having an established church, were unwilling to tolerate evangelical dissent. It quickly became clear that evangelical clergy were unwelcome in most TEC diocese, and would be run out or replaced upon retirement. Evangelical lay people were leaving, and even where staying, were disinclined to financially support TEC. The uncompromising enmity of TEC made the creation of CANA, and now ACNA, a simple matter of survival. I do not think it helped, incidentally, that some clergy leadership who cautioned against acting too quickly said, in essence, that they would rather see lay people leave the church than tolerate the creation of a second Anglican entity in the same geographic area. They did little to support the panel of reference, adequate alternative oversight, the Dar es Salaam proposal or any of the other options that at one time might have stopped the complete separation before it was too late. That significantly undercut their authority.
Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that the US experience was reactive to TEC’s actions. FCA seems likely to follow the same path only to the extent the UK churches similarly choose to drive them out. I think that is less likely in the UK, but I also note that over on the website of the Diocese of Washington, DC (USA), Adrian Worsfold is already being given space to call for their expulsion. It is somewhat amusing, referring to them as Trotskyite entryists, in a deluded way, but care must be taken, as I think he is quite serious.
[blockquote] Continued fellowship with those in ACNA is important for evangelicals in the Church of England and FCA clearly offers a means of achieving this but if FCA does not also recognise that most faithful Anglicans in North America have purposefully not taken this route and that they – in bodies such as the Communion Partners – also require support and encouragement then many in the Church of England will not be able to join FCA.[/blockquote]
I do not see that support of the ACNA is in any way a rejection of the orthodox in TEC. Many in the ACNA appreciate that not all churches and diocese are in the same position (the Diocese of South Carolina, notably). Some are called to one thing, one to another. Do some people think that others in some circumstances may have the wrong approach? Sure, and many of them will blog about it. But support for the ACNA will not undercut the faithful in TEC. Only support for the leadership of TEC will do that, and that, I believe, is something that the orthodox in TEC fear from the leadership of the CoE.
Jeremy, I’m not certain what you are disagreeing with in what I said.
All I said was that the two sides don’t share the same strategies [somewhat obvious, I’m hoping] and why shouldn’t both sides “press ahead” with those strategies.
The fact that parishes are leaving my side and moving on to ACNA certainly weakens my own group. But I don’t think that should be a reason to oppose a parish making their own decisions in good conscience. One of the things that people don’t seem to understand is that certain parishes and individuals are not and cannot remain any longer within TEC. Therefore . . . they have to do something, go somewhere. That place for some is ACNA.
Why is my side — my strategy — loudly decrying that? It is what it is. That’s what happens when an organization breaks down and devolves into chaos. One may look back and say “why” or “shouldn’t this have happened” or “our leaders aren’t leading.” But now we’re here. The ABC and the ACO and the ACC and the JSC and whatever the other leadership groups are made their decisions in good conscience too — and now consequences are naturally occurring with those decisions, and we’re all moving on.
For my part, ACNA is not my choice. I can conceive of no circumstances in which it will be my choice. But why begrudge its being other people’s choice?
On the other hand, I also don’t look back. I didn’t watch any of the ceremonies involved with the institution of ACNA — not even 30 seconds — and I skimmed perhaps an article or two. I am not filled with fascination or interest, other than wishing people well, especially those folks who are my friends, and simply could not remain within TEC. I want them to be happy and have a new and great start. But do I watch them? Nope — I have other things to work on and do and think about. They’ve cast off the lines and they’ve sailed and they’re approaching the horizon, and I turn my eyes back to land.
Goddard seems to be opposed to the respective strategic conservative groupings “pressing on” — I welcome it and relish it. I am thrilled to be pressing on.
Sarah’s right — I feel much the same about those who have chosen to pursue the “inside” strategy.I know I certainly will not be watching with bated breath what happens at GC this year in Anaheim. Along the same lines as Sarah mentioned in her previous post, a lot of this seems to be part of a tussle between reasserting leaders for well, leadership of the reasserting camp. As Sarah said, there’s been a lot of: “are you lot sure you’ve not going to be coming along?†from both camps on the conservative/orthodox side. It is time to move on and get on with it. The decisions have been made, and most folks have already decided where to cast their lot. There doesn’t seem to be much point to this sort of article unless Goddard thinks there’s some vast crowd among his readers who are still trying to make up their mind, or he fears erosion from his camp to the FCA camp.
As someone who has been away from “the fray” for some 30 years I have come back after retirement and been puzzled by all that is going on. This is not the same Church from which I resigned (under pressure) and it all confuses me. As a priest, the arguments that I remember from the 70’s seem to no longer exist and a bunch of new ones have come to the fore. What happened?
Fr. Bob+ (fatherbobsthoughts.blogspot.com)
Having been an evangelical in the UK for ten years, comparisons with the US are fraught. There are major evangelical seminaries (Wycliffe, Ridley, Trinity, St Johns, et al). There is a major evangelical block. TEC has nothing like this. FCA says it wants to fight and stay united, and Carey speaks of divisions amongst conservatives in the US at precisely this juncture — and FCA is saying it wants to stay and fight. So it is unclear how FCA occupies the space that ACNA does, as it says over and over it wants to stay united and fight from within — the ACI/CP position. Goddard seems concerned about protecting a major evangelical movement so that it is best equipped to fight. He probably wants to be sure that NT Wright and other conservative Bishops (+Winchester) do not get divided from others in evangelical/A-C ranks. It is hard for me to see obvious analogies with ACNA and CP/ACI, as Sarah seems to suggest. Staying and fighting and putting pressure on is a good thing for FCA to do, and Goddard’s concerns appear to lie at the level of protecting evangelicals from division (as Stott worried several decades back). I think we need to simply pray for unity and strong evangelical catholic pressure on the system, something that is not analogous inside the US.
Seitz-ACI — I’m not certain I understand what you are saying. Half of the afternoon at the FCA launch was about the need for alternative oversight. The parallels of the FCA with the Network and Common Cause are rather striking.
The only analogy I made between ACNA and CP/ACI is the constant toing and froing among the leaders of those two parties about the horrors of the other side “pressing on” with their respective strategies. And yes, both sides do it ad nauseum.
I thought the point was self-evident. FCA leaders say they are not leaving.
What I also believe FCA is intimating is that they are in a better position to influence things, and so avoid the need for an ‘ACNA’ analogue in the UK. They see ACNA and Duncan as having fought a valiant and necessary fight. They believe that they can succeed where conservatives in the US were unable, given their (small) size and also, I suspect, due to the complexity of ‘continuers’ of various kinds and the history of that. My original point was that the size and influence of evangelicalism in the UK is of a different order. Even in Scotland, where the tiny SEC probably has no more than 10K in church on Sundays, the strong churches are evangelical and have no need to leave (which many of them can do with a whole lot less problems; so St Silas in Glasgow or P/G’s in Edinburgh). You seemed to suggest that the staying and fighting model of CP/ACI was not the analogy to FCA. My point was that, if the leaders are to be believed, this is the direction of FCA, and they believe they can succeed — precisely because the dynamics, proportion, history are so different to what obtains in the US.
RE: “FCA leaders say they are not leaving.”
You mean, leaders like Charles Raven — who is already gone?
The Network said they weren’t leaving either.
Indeed — striking parallels.
RE: “My point was that, if the leaders are to be believed, this is the direction of FCA, and they believe they can succeed—precisely because the dynamics, proportion, history are so different to what obtains in the US.”
Well I’d rather you were right than I. So we’ll see.
Charles Raven a leader and representative of FCA? I’d not have thought so. I am actually still on the masthead of Anglican Mainstream (having attended the first meeting). I had in mind +Rochester, Sugden, et al.
The Network said it was not leaving and it didn’t.
“I think we need to simply pray for unity and strong evangelical catholic pressure on the system, something that is not analogous inside the US”.
I believe that the strong evangelical catholic presence in the US can also pressure the system, but its efforts will be futile. Perhaps that’s part of what Dr. Seitz is trying to say.
I prefer to pray for unity too, but, internationally and nationally(I’m American) I still think we’re eventually looking at two churches.
I wish I didn’t have to believe that on the international front, but I seriously wonder at the “leadership” from the top; re: the Covenant and traditional Anglican theology. What steps are being taken to correct the ACC debacle? Are those steps anywhere near effective?
Here in the US, GC will be very telling; you’ll get a walloping gander at how far outside the lines TEC wants to color.
I’m in a CP diocese, and, at the moment, I agree with its position. I won’t get in the lifeboat till I absolutely have to. But I do believe that I will eventually, in my lifetime, have to, along with other CPers.
God help us all…