ST PAUL, facing shipwreck off Malta, spotted the soldiers getting into a small boat to rescue themselves. “Unless these men stay in the ship,” he said to the centurion, “you cannot be saved.”
A similar urgent plea must now be addressed to those who, envisaging the imminent break-up of the good ship Anglican, are getting into a lifeboat called GAFCON, leaving the rest of us to face the future without them.
I have shared the frustration of the past five years, both in the United States and around the world. I have often wished that the Windsor report could have provided a more solid and speedy resolution. But the ship hasn’t sunk yet.
The rationale of GAFCON (the Global Anglican Future Conference) is: “The Communion is finished; nothing new can happen; it’s time to split.” No mention is made of the Windsor report, the proposed Anglican Covenant, or, indeed, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Advent letter, insisting as it does on scriptural authority, which GAFCON seems to regard as its monopoly.
This from the man who helped lead us down the primrose path of “the Windsor Process.”
Re #1: If you can suggest an alternative path that would not break the Communion apart any worse than is currently happening, I’d be glad to hear it. The fact is that all the provinces—not just some of them and certainly not just the reappraisers—put a very high premium on their ability to regulate their own business without excessive outside influence. That instinct is rooted in the English Reformation and enshrined in the Articles of Religion. Most of them also value the mutual responsibility and interdependence that has been growing in the Anglican limb of the Body of Christ since “MRI” was coined as a slogan at the 1963 Anglican Congress. Balancing those two desires is not a simple task.
The unilateral actions within the North American provinces originally upset the balance, but the unilateral actions of other provinces have further undercut the mutual respect that is the only force holding the Communion together. If unilateralism is the disease, it cannot be the cure. The only alternative I can think of (again, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts) is some sort of collective deliberation and action. The central Communion authorities have only the powers that the members grant them. Since the 44 Anglican churches can only speak officially through their synodical governments, that takes time.
If the central authorities of the Communion had summarily assumed powers that they have never been conceded to have over the internal workings of the provinces, it would not just have alarmed TEC and the Canadians. It would have propagated the North American struggle into a war between and within the other provinces even more quickly than has actually happened. Not even Nigeria would concede control to an outside authority (as we could see when they recently amended their Constitution to redefine Anglicanism as conformity with their local understanding of Anglican theology, rather than adherence to a visible Communion). Any effort by the Instruments to assume real power without the consent of the provinces would only deepen the rupture.
Again, the Instruments (including the Archbishop of Canterbury) have no power without the concurrence of the 44 synodical governments in the member churches. The Covenant is an effort to give them some authority and some express standards to apply. Until it is adopted, “there is no king in Israel and everyone does as he wishes.” To resist the Covenant process while also criticizing the Instruments for not exercising the powers that only a Covenant can give them is, in the words of C.S. Lewis, “to make geldings and bid them be fruitful.”
[blockquote]If you can suggest an alternative path that would not break the Communion apart any worse than is currently happening, I’d be glad to hear it.[/blockquote]
I hope this doesn’t seem curt, but it’s called discipline. And any church unwilling or unable to exercise it is headed to disintegration anyway.
Lots of great comments on this at Stand Firm.
4- esp 147, which was not so off topic as SH might say. But on the whole a great discussion thread.
The good bishop seems opposed to a GAFCON of his own imagining, it would appear to me. And as to who is staying in the boat, that would also be subject to debate.
The image of the shipwreck here is as loaded as KJS’s use of the childabuse association
THE DANGER of GAFCON is that the rhetoric — “the Communion’s finished†— could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I would change “could” to “has.”
Indeed, Sir Highmoor. I love Bp Wright, but he speaks with the assurance of someone in the back of the ship who is sure that if we all just work together, we’ll avoid the crash, while those of us at the bow who realize that the best of our steering efforts is not going to compensate of the speed and direction of the vessel toward the iceberg really just want to get the women and chuildren to safety. We’re talking past each other, really.
I appreciate the position of some that the GS bishops whould go to GAFCON AND to Lambeth. However, they need to put their money where their mouths are. Such a proposition is an expensive one for bishops in countries of limited resources. If you insist that they should go to both, I’ve got three little words for you – PAY FOR IT. When Lambeth, the ACO & the “standing the gap” bishops and Primates offer to cover the costs for their brothers in this, I will take them seriously.
Re #3: When I encounter a bratty child in the supermarket, there is nothing that I would rather do than exercise “discipline.” The sad fact is that—no matter how much better a parent to that child I might have been than the one the poor kid got—I do not have the authority to exercise discipline without the consent of the actual parent. Historically, there has been no global Anglican Church with parental oversight within the member churches. The only way to create such a thing (assuming we want to) is to obtain the consent of those who are currently in charge, the synodical governments of the 44 Anglican member churches. Most of them are unlikely to acquiesce in a simple grab for power by the central institutions, which have (in any case) been hesitant to take on the responsibilities that would go with the power.
Actually, there is an alternative, though whether it is desirable is a matter of opinion. Archbishop Peter Jenson of Sydney (who is heavily involved in both the planning and financing of GAFCON) has suggested that the current Anglican Communion is [b]already[/b] too centralized, in bondage to an excessively Catholic doctrine of the Church. His alternative is a sort of Anglican Constellation of essentially independent churches, each of which self-identifies with Anglicanism whether or not any other church agrees. This constellation would be held together by non-institutional ties of charity and affection, which might not—and in some cases clearly would not—include pulpit or table fellowship. Intercommunion and exchange of ministers would be defined by a network of voluntary associations and bilateral agreements (much as Sydney currently recognizes an Anglican denomination in Southern Africa that is not the official Anglican province). Since each church would be independent, there would be no problem with jurisdictional overlaps or extramural church planting. I suspect this model would work to diminish our conflicts, but its practical advantages do not overcome its hard-core Protestant ecclesiology for me.
I think it is helpful to read Bishop Wright’s use of the “shipwreck” metaphor in light of the way he has used it historically to comment on the crisis before us. He presents a thorough exegetical account and then reminds us of doctrine in good “canonical-linguistic” fashion – to coin Kevin Vanhoozer’s phrase – of how to chart our course through shoal waters in his 2005 remarks before the ACC [url=http://covenant-communion.com/?p=476] that you can find here[/url]. It is well worth taking the time to read these earlier remarks and then this week’s commentary to his fellow evangelicals in order to appreciate the depth of his thinking here.
Bishop Wright correctly reminds all evangelicals that the name “evangelical” points to a people who understand their vocation as a call to witness to the good news of Christ as it is revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. And, as Paul taught, that means imitating the form of Christ’s passion-ate way of existence in the way we live with each other: witnessing to the reconciliation of creation already achieved in and through Jesus the Messiah.
He rightly questions if the GAFCON movement reflects a power play rather than the power of cruciform weakness to which Paul repeatedly points us.
I think Kevin Vanhoozer, professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School said it well:
“All Christians who are patient in adversity can ‘in truth be called martyrs.” …”The martyrdom that is the proper end of doctrine involves suffering for one’s witness to the truth.”
Referring to the breakup of ECUSA or the Anglican Communion as a shipwreck has become commonplace, but, in the spirit of the age, is usually done by referring to the Titanic. Bp. Wright, if he has accomplished nothing else, has at least called our attention back to the biblical account of St. Paul’s shipwreck. At least we are now talking about the right shipwreck. It is noteworthy, however, that Wright directed us to Paul’s ship at the lifeboat scene while the ship was still afloat. And whatever our perspective on Paul, we have all read the rest of the story. Paul’s ship does in fact break apart and sink, and the survivors float to shore clinging to whatever planks (GAFCON? CCP?) they can find. But Wright did say “the ship hasn’t sunk yet.â€
ps I should note that I cross posted with #11, without seeing his reflections on shipwrecks.
No, Mark, that’s not the rest of the story. The rest of the story is that the crew stays together, survives the most amazing storm one can imagine, prays together, feasts together, and the Word of God does not return empty but rather makes its way to Rome, the center of the world.
Indeed, they set adrift the boat in which they had planned to escape and stayed together, and Paul, took bread, “giving thanks to God in the presence of all, he broke it and began to eat. Then all of them were encouraged and took food for themselves.” Acts 27:35-36
The Greek words Luke uses here are virtually the same as he had Jesus use in his Gospel account (Lk 24: 30).
It was only after they gave up the plan of escape and stuck together that they found their way through the storm.
And that is precisely what the bishop is reminding us of.
Well you can certainly stay together if you ignore what TEC is doing and if you are will to accept perpetual process never arriving at a conclusion. That has been the pattern so far and I don’t think the covenant will be any different. In fact I think it is the ABC’s deliberate stratagy. Like it or not GAFCON is calculated to actually do something and I think that that is what frightens so many people.
If our Windsor Bishops would have been as forthright and courageous at Tom Wright encouraged them to be at the Windsor Bishop’s meetings, and he himself is in the C of E, there would have been no reason for GafCon…or Common Cause…of CANA…or AMiA…
But the reality is that conservatives in TEC simply have been offered no real leadership or displays of courage from our bishops, (other than perhaps Bob Duncan and Ed Salmon) so that we have had no choice but to find new bishops who are committed to truth instead of compromised by political survival.
So those who should have been elected to the Episcopacy in the first place if the system had not become so liberally compromised (I am thinking here of Guernsey, Minns, Anderson and others…) have now been made bishops and are offering leadership, gospel, and courage to an ever growing constituency of Anglicans in America outside the constraints of a corrupt and inhospitable TEC.
I understand Tom’s position and context, but the reality of our circumstances is that we are lacking bishops like he is…even though he tried hard to create them for us, or at least to stiffen the spines of those potential leaders we had–but all to no avail.
Craig,
It is Bp. Wright, not I, who first identifies the Anglican ship with St. Paul’s ship. Your subtle shift of the metaphor, from Anglican Communion as ship to Anglican Communion as passengers, is the metaphorical shift from Comcon to Fedcon. When we get our symbols tied down, we feds certainly read the rest of the story as you do.
But while we are on shipwrecks, what I would really like to talk about are the allusions to the Odyssey and the Aeneid in Luke’s account, including the passage you described so well. Another day!
I completely support Don Armstrong in his assessment that Tom Wright has absolutely failed to deliver what he promised to Rowan and the Communion.
There is not a single positive thing to say about what Tom has done or said or where he has led those who have listened to him. He was Rowan’s first appointment to the Bench, I told Rowan the week he appointed him he was a busted flush, for some unbelievable reason his total failure to deliver has earned him ever more control of the process.
Some of his books are reasonable – but he is a walking disaster area!
Dear Martin,
My assessment was of the American Bishops with which Bishop Wright was given to work, not Bishop Wright. Certainly I was not describing +Durham as a failure.
I was in the Windsor Bishops meetings. +Durham with ++Tanzania and +Winchester were brilliant, strong, biblical, and clear.
To the credit of the American Bishops, they knew and heard truth when it was presented to them.
But the undoing of TEC and the necessity of GafCon & Common Cause is simply because these self described Windsor Bishops failed to act on the clear calling and direction delivered by these emissaries from the larger communion.
There has been no general push back, not even a minority report from the Windsor Bishops. They will not even vocalize disappointment in the HOB or PB for their attacks on other bishops, dioceses, or congregations–let alone mount a real effort to resist the attacks and defend the orthodox faith.
They have let the more gutsy (Duncan, Iker, Schofield) crawl out on a limb and they have cut the branch off.
The Windsor Bishops are living by a doctrine of appeasement, and this is not something that was ever advocated by Tom Wright.
My point back to +Durham is that Gafcon is happening simply because there was not even a sign of life from within conservative elements of TEC, while Rowan is AWOL, so an outside solution was initiated by those wanting to keep the Communion from total disintegration in the face of liberal tyranny and a pacifist response from conservative bishops (that being generous in thinking the conservative bishops actually have a conviction beyond self preservation).
Remember too that NT Wright is an avowed pacifist himself. He is very disappointed in the American policies regarding the war against terror…so these overt actions outside the given structure of the church would raise real flags for him.
I think there is also a misunderstanding about what GafCon is about–it is a spiritual pep rally for evangelism in a church that is dying in its focus on sex and structure.
Using Emil Brunner’s categories—GafCon is an attempt at a transforming ‘holy communion’ with God instead of mere ‘sacred institution’…in other words a real purpose in the context of eternity in relationship with the living God instead of a fighting for ascendancy of position and power with in the principalities and structures of the institutional church.
But you simply cannot blame Tom Wright for the failure of nerve among the Windsor Bishops…
Yes, Dear Don I think we all understand how a small group of Americans have wrought havoc in the healing process of the Anglican Communion.
What I am saying is that these are the very ones Tom was supposed to “gather in†and he has failed completely! In fact, apart from a minor Asian theologian, the whole Fulcrum/ACI axis has been a total flop – forgive me Don but you are a rather spectacular example of this failure.
Having thus botched winning his own constituency – indeed he appears to have personally alienated many – you might think his influence would be on the wane?
Ah, this is Anglicanism! The reward for this major disaster has been to shift Tom up a gear (indeed some say his personal career has had the same character) – and now he can alienate a whole new batch of people.
Oh but Martin, it is not the conservatives who have been unwilling to repent and amend their lives, it has been the revisionists who have failed to develop even a glimmer of a response to the many papers and publications of ACI/Fulcrum–no theological debate in the Anglican Tradition even attempted to support their disordered behaviors.
What we have instead from liberals is a full court press to move forward with an agenda and theology (if you could really call it that) totally against the express will of the whole Communion…
And instead of a theology to support it, they use lies, abuse of judicial process, and extortion, all funded by trust funds intended for the classic ministry of the church.
Our ordination vows call us to innocency of life–and all this has caught conservatives off guard–and of that we ought to actually be proud that we were not as treacherous in our thinking as our evil counterparts…
I think the direct attacks against Tom Wright are highly unnecessary and unwarranted. I also believe that the fact that I am upright and in place, full of energy and passion for the gospel…given the multi-million dollar attack waged against me and my parish, precisely for the work we have done here, is proof of both our effectiveness and the Lord’s blessing…no one here feels a sense of failure or despondency.
For once Martin Reynolds is on to something. Tom Wright does not represent any kind of orthodoxy, only a particular strand of anglican liberalism. The fact that he sells large numbers of books about the bible does not make him a reliable guide to anything, as it seems has become more apparent in the UK than across the water.