A coalition of conservative Anglican and Episcopal bishops has announced an eight-day conference in Jerusalem in mid-June to register their disenchantment with the liberal direction of the Anglican Communion.
It will be six weeks before the once-per-decade Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops, scheduled for July 20-Aug. 3 at the University of Kent in Canterbury, England. Although more than 800 bishops are invited to Lambeth, up to one-third may boycott it to protest the 2003 consecration of the openly homosexual New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson.
Bishop Robinson has not been invited to the Lambeth gathering, but the 18 active bishops who helped consecrate him in November 2003 were invited, sparking furious reactions from Anglican conservatives, who declared they would not attend the same conference.
“The idea is to provide pastoral support for bishops and their wives, who would have normally been expected to go to Lambeth for that, but for reasons of conscience cannot,” said Canon Chris Sugden, one of the Jerusalem organizers and executive director of the Oxford-based Anglican Mainstream.
Three aspects of this article are worth noting:
1. Is GAFCON an alternative conference to Lambeth 2008 or not?
Julia Duin thinks that GAFCON is an alternative to Lambeth 2008.
Chris Sugden implies that it is an alternative to Lambeth 2008, in his comment:
Archbishop Akinola has an interesting comment:
2. Representation of 30 million Anglicans?
From a Church of England perspective, it is not at all clear that the Bishops of Lewes and Rochester would claim to represent all the Anglicans in the Church of England. From a Global South Anglican perspective, it is not at all clear that the provinces of South East Asia, the West Indies, Jerusalem and the Middle East – and interestingly also many bishops in Nigeria, Uganda and Kenya – would claim that GAFCON is representing Anglicans in their pastoral care.
3. Courtesy to a highly respected, conservative, professional journalist?
The article by Julia Duin was quickly linked into from the Anglican Mainstream site:
[url=http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/01/07/bishops-to-protest-anglican-liberal-tilt/]link here[/url]
This is in contrast to the way George Conger’s second article on GAFCON has been treated.
George Conger’s first article in the Jerusalem Post on GAFCON, 31 December 2007, was entitled ‘Anglicans Choose Jerusalem for Key June Conference’:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1198517248310
It was headlined on the Anglican Mainstream site, one day earlier 30 December 2007, as ‘Jerusalem Post Welcomes GAFCON’:
[url=http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2007/12/30/jerusalem-post-welcomes-gafcon/#more-2635]link here[/url]
and as ‘Jerusalem Post on GAFCON’ on the GAFCON site, on 31 December 2007:
http://www.gafcon.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=1
He has written a second article for the Jerusalem Post, 3 January 2008:
‘Regional Anglicans fear Jerusalem conference could ‘inflame tensions’
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517289975&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
This second article has not been mentioned at all on either the Anglican Mainstream site, or on the GAFCON site. It would be courteous to do so.
Graham
#1 – yes, GAFCON is an alternative Lambeth, but the leaders of GAFCON are too polite to publicly say so. They have said for years no disciple, no Lambeth. Read [url=http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/the_road_to_lambeth_presented_at_capa/] “the road to Lambeth” [/url] , etc, etc”. They want to unite as a group, and so they are holding their own meeting.
Where was the voice of your organisation when the discipline of TEC was whitewashed?
“This second article has not been mentioned at all on either the Anglican Mainstream site, or on the GAFCON site. It would be courteous to do so.”
They haven’t linked Jake’s rantings, either. I am sure Jake is affronted by the discourtesy.
ABp Jensen has said quite clearly that it is not an alternative Lambeth. They may, for example, drink a good middle eastern coffee rather than tea. But he did say that for those who are opting out of Lambeth, it will provide fellowship with international colleagues. If the two events were simultaneous, then it would have to be considered an alternate. This is not very difficult to understand. I cannot believe that some are so dense to misunderstand this. So why the sniping at the participants of the conference? Why the harping?
It is insane for the orthodox bishops to boycott Lambeth. It would be a betrayal of the Anglican Communion into the hands of the far left, and that is unnecessary.
#2, Observing, thanks. You wrote:
See the Fulcrum response to the Advent Letter, which could not be described as a ‘whitewash’:
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=256
See the Fulcrum coverage of the New Orleans meeting:
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=239
#3, Robroy, thanks. You make my case for me. As you know well, Fr Jake and George Conger differ in their view of issues of sexuality: the former is liberal and unlikely to be linked into from the Anglican Mainstream site and the latter is conservative and would be expected to be so linked.
As to whether GAFCON is in reality an alternative to Lambeth 2008, it is worth reading Chris Sugden’s reply to a question from Kent News concerning whether the Archbishop of Canterbury would be invited to GAFCON. He said:
[url=http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news/CofE-unity-threatened-by-conference-split-newsinkent8264.aspx]link here[/url]
Why keep mentioning worries about GAFCON? Well many, many conservative Anglicans really do doubt the wisdom holding GAFCON at that time and in that place and in opposition to the clearly expressed wishes of the local bishop and local Presiding Bishop. We do not want defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory at Lambeth 2008. It is that serious.
Graham King they represent more then 30.000.000, Nigeria(18.000.000), Uganda(11.753.0000, Rwanda(1.000.000), Kenya(3.160.000), Tanzania(3.300.000), so 37.213.000 Anglicans, the Province of South West Asia(255.790), Middle East(just about 28.000 and the majority are just expat), and you know that CofE doesn’t have 26.000.000, just a electoral roll of 852.000, and a few that use it for their funerals and marriage. I live in a village of 8.600 people, 99.9% wasp and just have about 120-150 people each Sunday morning in Church.
I have given my reasons for its probably being pointless for “orthodox Anglican” bishops to attend Lambeth 2008 on some of the comments on this thread:
http://mcj.bloghorn.com/3578#Comments
at “Midwestern Conservative Journal.”
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]
As I said before, this Conference was called by Akinola and Jensen to show that they can call a International Anglican Conference without TEC’s money, what Rowan can’t do. Second Sydney and Nigeria will pay for those who need help to go to Jerusalem(Nigeria has a lot of money, they give 10% to the Lord), and which good orthodox Anglican bishop, clergy would not like to do a pilgrimage to the Holy City of Jerusalem. My question is “will those orthodox bishops that don’t have money go to Lambeth with the ticket paid by TEC money.”
#8 Paulo UK, thanks. You also make my case for me by raising the issue of finances. It may well be that many African Anglican bishops cannot afford to go to both in such a sort time span. In encourging African Anglican bishops to go to GAFCON, the organisers are giving them clear discouragement from going to Lambeth 2008.
This does demonstrate the clumsiness of the conservative camp. For whatever reason, they chose Jerusalem, without honoring the locals. It’s the “Gospel agenda,” promoted by those who don’t care about how they are perceived, even by those who would be their friends.
I will say, if this kind of infighting and disrespect among conservatives continues, I won’t be worried about the place of TEC in the communion.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
#5 says: “We do not want defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory at Lambeth 2008. It is that serious.”
But where is the program that those who are arguing for fuller global south attendance intend to have presented at Lambeth 2008? What, specifically, will be done about TEC? Will all of its bishops, if their invitations remain in place (something many expect) be full participants throughout? What will be done to implement adequate protection for the orthodox in the US and Canada? Will a vote be put forth on something like the Dar es Salaam PV/PC scheme, with it positioned to replace TEC as the North American province should TEC not agree to the covenant? And what of the covenant? Will it be watered down? Strengthened? What version does Anglican Mainstream endorse? Does it support the request of the CoE comments to immediately forbid the existing border crossing arrangments like CANA and AMiA, but leave the discipline of TEC for some unspecified later day? Are global south bishops being asked to support something, or just be a counterweight should TEC try any mischief?
I am of two minds as to whether global south bishops should attend Lambeth. I do not think I am alone in wondering what the right thing to do is. But you need to give someone a reason to show up. Vague calls to unity and truth for no particular reason and no particular truth, or just to help ensure something might not happen, are not convincing. The advocates for Lambeth need to persuade people to attend by explaining what the orthodox program will be if they attend. If there is no orthodox progam for Lambeth other than to make sure TEC achieves no mischief, well, then, that should be admitted. So far, GAFCON appears to be the only place where people are even broaching the topic of what the Lambeth program for the orthdox should be. I suggest Anglican Mainstream should go to GAFCON and seek to persuade.
#5, Graham, thanks for those links. I looked, and could not find anything which supported discipline of TEC, or which criticised Canterbury for allowing the whitewash of TEC to occur. Can you be more specific? Your criticisms of the organisers of GAFCON are really loud and clear. On the Fulcrum site and on all of the blogs in the last 10 days. I don’t see any such clarity in the other direction.
And sorry, I still don’t see how your strategy of publicly humiliating the GAFCON organisers is helping achieve reconciliation in any manner or form?
Oops, in my last line in #11 I should have said Fulcrum, not Anglican Mainstream. Though, come to think of it, all the groups should have an opportunity to make their case at GAFCON as to why bishops should or should not end Lambeth. Basically, I agree with #12 – don’t just complain, tell the bishops what you think they should go to Lambeth and do.
#12 the problem of the evangelical centre (fulcrum and co) is ENVY, they are irrelevant, no one listen to them, so they attack Jensen/Akinola camp. The GAFCON will happen Graham Kings/Rowan/Kath/Carey Jr like or not.
Re #12: I found the following Fulcrum statement from 3 November 2003:
[blockquote]It is regrettable that ECUSA by its actions has impaired communion, ‘torn the fabric at the deepest level’. It is essential that this tear is not allowed to extend further. The representative Anglican today is young, poor, is located not in North America or Britain but in Africa or Asia and lives daily with political marginalisation, the spectre of war, famine and the ravages of preventable disease. For such a person a unified global Anglicanism is a lifeline, an essential system of global collective support. ECUSA’s action has now put this in jeopardy.
Fulcrum wishes to assure US Anglicans who oppose what has happened in New Hampshire of our support and prayers as they seek to understand how some kind of re-alignment might be accomplished in discussion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.[/blockquote]
I haven’t seen anything Fulcrum or Graham Kings have said over the last four years that is inconsistent with that call for discipline of TEC or that tolerated a whitewash of its behavior.
#3 robroy says:
The GAFCON organizers have indeed stated that they don’t intend this meeting to be a “GS Lambeth” in opposition to the “Canterbury Lambeth,” and I have no reason not to take them at their word. But it’s not completely up to them. If enough of the attendees come thinking, “This is the GS Lambeth,” then that’s what the meeting will become whether the organizers intended it or not.
Will a sufficient number of people attending GAFCON view it that way for it to become the de facto alternate Lambeth? I have no idea; but I think it’s clear that at least some of the people going see it as such.
As someone who is neither a “FedCon” nor a “ComCon,” the pro/con argument on GAFCON is something of a family argument that I’m not a participant in, so I can view it with some detachment. I must say that not getting the blessing of the Bishop of Jerusalem before announcing the site seems to have been a bit of a tactical misstep on the part of the organizers, since I can’t imagine that the public argument over that serves their interests in any way; but at the same time they seem to be playing a pretty canny strategic game in this almost-but-not-quite shaking of the dust of Canterbury from their sandals. I remain fascinated to see how this plays out over the summer.
Thanks, Pendennis, #9.
I will attempt to answer your questions by reference to an earlier thread.
On 30 December 2007, on the TitusOneNine thread concerning Michael Poon’s questions on GAFCON, Sarah [Hey] and I had a discussion and as part of that she set out a suggested scenario for Lambeth 2008 and the 20 years following. It can be seen on:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/8764/#164540
I copy my reply to Sarah below:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/8764/#164590
Sarah, after thinking this over, quite rightly saw the importance of focusing the issue on the draft text of the Anglican Covenant. On Stand Firm, she posted a very fine series of seven articles on the seven sections of that text. See the whole series which I have ‘bookended’ below:
Part one is:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8829/
and
Part seven is:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8835/
Now, GAFCON has no mention at all of The Windsor Report, the draft Anglican Covenant and the Advent Letter. These three are the key to the importance of Lambeth 2008.
#15 I found this [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=257] statement [/url] on the Fulcrum website:
[blockquote] …mutual recognition as Christian is still possible between churches that are engaged in radical controversy. A church may be putting any number of obstacles in the way of the sanctification of its members, and it is the duty of other churches to point this out; but this is rather different from a church ceasing in all respects to be a church. (p. 25)
The Episcopal Church should not be denied the name church – let alone described as ‘another religion’ – yet the delineation of boundaries is indeed important in ecclesiology. The careful description of these in the Advent Letter fulfils the historic role of the Archbishop of Canterbury to ‘articulate the mind of the Communion’ in moments of tension and controversy (para 109, The Windsor Report).[/blockquote]
So yes, I get it now . No discipline required. Free to preach heresy. But don’t let anyone try and cross boundaries to try and defend those poor souls. I’m more convinced than ever that attending Lambeth would be a complete waste of time, if this is the mindset of the conservatives attending.
Sorry, but I had no idea what Fulcrum actually stood for. I thought from earlier posts that it actually had standing up for traditional christianity as part of its aims. I would not have had this outburst if I had realised it was just another “anything goes, just don’t rock the boat” group.
Those of the Evangelical center(Fulcrum, windsor bishops and others) are criticizing the Jerusalem meeting and the AC without Canterbury, believe that to be in communion with Canterbury is matter of Salvation, they dream that Canterbury is some apostolic see, I have no problem with the ABUJAN COMMUNION, I have been there it is a nice place full of live very different of boring Canterbury.
Observing, #18, thanks for quoting my Fulcrum Newsletter for December 2007, ‘Contemplative Pragatism: Hints of a Hinterland to the Advent Letter’:
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=257
To give the context, your first paragraph is a quotation from Rowan Williams concerning Richard Hooker’s perspective on Roman Catholics as the end of the 16th century.
Your second paragraph is my comment applying it to our present context and giving a critique of the ‘two religions’ rhetoric of some conservatives. You quote me as saying:
and that is what I believe. Have a read again of the Advent Letter and you will see both delineation and discipline in it.
As our Fulcrum response to it stated:
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=256
Yes, discipline is required and we have stated that.
As to the ‘traditional’ aims of Fulcrum, have a look at:
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/centre.cfm?menuopt=1
To be honest, #17, I was hoping, and I think we need soon, an actual scenario for protection of the orthodox, rather than a suggestion or implication of a scenario.
Let me quote your reference to the ACI’s statement:
[blockquote] The Advent Letter sets out the process for this and I agree with the Anglican Communion Institute’s response to it, especially the following paragraph near the end: ‘The clear implication of the Advent Letter and the Dar es Salaam Communiqué is that a solution to the issue of differentiation internal to TEC is the proper way forward. It is urgent that an American solution to an American problem be found. It is our hope that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishops of TEC and the leaders of the Windsor Bishops will devote their energies to this issue and find a mutually acceptable solution with all deliberate speed. We fear that if no such action is taken both TEC and the Communion as a whole will be faced with a battle between opposing forces that may well simply tear fabric of our communion apart.’ [/blockquote]
I agree. It is urgent it be found. It has been urgent for over three years. When will this solution be ready to see? I assume you are not referring to the DES solution – the only one that all of the primates (well, maybe not one) agreed to. TEC and the ABC have already rejected that. I must say I highly suspect, though I have no inside knowledge, that some of the organizers of GAFCON are working on one. I look forward to seeing how the plan of ACI and Fulcrum compares. But I do think that those advocating attendance at Lambeth must come up with their proposed solution before Lambeth and to take to Lambeth, or there will be doubt that any solution will result. There is no reason to think things will be any better in 2012 if Lambeth cannot adequately address the consequences currently being visited on the orthodox now.
It has always been the case that protection of the orthodox must be in place first if one wants the luxury of waiting to discipline TEC. It remains so.
#20 Graham
I read the advent letter again, and still can’t see any mention of discipline, sorry. Maybe its the definition of discipline that we don’t hold in common.
For me discipline is:
“Dear Bishop
I have noticed that you are encouraging the teaching of the [url=http://www.dohio.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1658&Itemid=272] “Saving Jesus” [/url] series in your churches. You should understand that the [url=http://www.jendireiter.com/2007/04/01/saving-jesus-episode-10-bad-news-for-people-who-love-good-news.aspx] “saving Jesus” [/url] series teaches things which are inconsistent with our common faith and could seriously undermine the faith of new Christians. If you are unable to cease supporting these teachings I am afraid I will not be able to recognise you as a bishop in communion”.
Next month the Diocese is still running the training.
“Dear Bishop
You membership in the communion is hereby terminated unless you can show just cause within 30 days”
Please can you explain what discipline should happen in this situation (follow the links and read the whole sorry thing – and yes, the series before this one has been shown in 2500 churches across the world and its looking like the Saving Jesus series is proving as popular looking at how many churches are running it).
I’d be interested to understand what discipline would mean from your perspective in this case? Do you allow the bishop to continue to harm his flock and maintain full communion to preserve the unity of the church, or do you take action to remove him from office? When a priest from a neighbouring diocese starts a training series without permission in the Diocese (permission was refused), where he runs an Alpha course, do you start a pr campaign to expose his discourtesy, or due you send an assistant to help him meet the needs of the influx of new converts?
Graham Kings and all. Please in the future, use TinyUrl.com (or similar site) to shorten long links, or create links using URL codes. Long links on this site cause problems for most readers using Internet Explorer. There is a software glitch we’ve been unable to fix.
Thanks.
I agree with Graham King’s article in the December Fulcrum [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=257]newsletter[/url]. However it is worth saying that Hooker’s view that the Roman Catholic Church was a part of the true church (though deeply in error on some matters) was very unusual in among his English theological contemporaries. The great weight of theological opinion in the early Church of England was that the Church of Rome was apostate and thus should be opposed by every means possible.
Thanks, Elves, #23. Sorry for the long links – sounds like an apology for a good golf course… I’ll use the url code in future.
I should add in the world before denominationalism (that is, acceptance of a visibly split body of Christ), departing the visible church demanded a theological explanation. The most common explanation was that the Church of Rome was apostate and thus people of faith must depart and encourage, cajole andd even compel others to do so too for the sake of their salvation.
If one begins to argue, along with Hooker, that the Church of Rome was not apostate but merely in error, then splitting the visible church for the sake of non-salvific theological errors begins to seem theologically indefensible?
So the dilemma of Hooker’s argument was:
1. If you accept it – the very existence of the Church of England demanded theological justification.
2. If you deny it – you denied that the Church of Rome was a part of the visible church and so people not only could but must flee it.
Thus the argument should really be about why folks think TEC is or is not apostate. If TEC is judged apostate (and I should say I don’t think it is) then folks are surely right to think that not only can they leave but they must. Quoting Hooker won’t resolve that argument.