Declaring GAFCON an “Instrument of Unity” is a critique of the failure of the existing Instruments of Unity” to hold the Communion together in the face of unilateral revisions of faith and practice by Anglican churches in the west (by this I mean the failure in the last ten years of the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference of Bishops, and Primates gatherings and the Anglican Consultative Council). This is not news. Even Archbishop Justin Welby acknowledged from the pulpit at All Saints Cathedral in Nairobi, the day before GAFCON 2013 began, that the Instruments of unity had failed.
But the declaration that GAFCON is now an Instrument of Unity also stands for a very positive affirmation and recovery of something lost to Anglicanism. It is the assertion that Anglicans need not wallow in the “deficit of authority” that has paralayzed the current Anglican leadership in the face of un-Biblical teaching and moral practices. It is the assertion”“ and the beginning of the manifestation”“ of a recovery of genuine conciliar governance that we find as far back as Acts 15 and the earliest ecumenical councils of the undivided church.
What do I mean by “conciliar governance”? Quite simply, it is the way of governing the church that we find in Acts 15, where leaders from every quarter and every order of the church met to worship, pray, address serious theological and missiological issues (must gentiles be circumcised in order to become followers of Jesus Christ), and reach a consensus on the basis of Scripture, apostolic witness and the Holy Spirit.
Excellent article by Phil Ashey. Clear thinking about the only feasible way to restore order in the Anglican Communion. One can tell Phil is a lawyer by training and temperament. Thanks Phil
I’m sure that there can be “conciliar governance” . . . for the 10 current Primates who attended Gafcon.
Anybody got a list of the current Primates who have actually signed on to the Jerusalem Declaration — the document that undergirds FCA? My guess is less than a dozen . . . but in the odd absence of an actual list, who knows?
But again . . . engaging in conciliar governance amongst the provinces whose Primates have signed on to the Jerusalem Declaration should be a piece of cake.
The problem is that FCA/Gafcon Primates are a distinct subset of the actual orthodox Global South Primates.
A healthy conciliarism is every one present and counted for, and decisions banged out after hard work, prayer, more hard work, and a fair playing field.
We know there has not been the latter, but the largest possible orthodox grouping (so #2) could call for the latter and attend under those conditions. That is certainly the desire of some GS leaders.
Also, almost by definition ‘conciliarism’ (Gershon) is leadership by council, not by confessional documents.
Sarah at #2, that was the whole point of the article – Anglicans can sit around wringing their hands and waiting for unanimous agreement (which will never happen, except on K J Schori’s or K Kearon’s terms), or they can just get on with it. Gafcon does this; so do the Global South. Others can join in or not as they please.
“The problem is that FCA/Gafcon Primates are a distinct subset of the actual orthodox Global South Primates.”
No, it isn’t a problem, nor are they are a “distinct” subset. They are just a subset who are focussed on active intervention in the western churches, and who appear otherwise to be in general accordance with the Global South.
“Also, almost by definition ‘conciliarism’ (Gershon) is leadership by council, not by confessional documents.”
The concept of ‘conciliarism’ is agnostic about confessional documents, hence I don’t understand your attempt to find a dichotomy.
RE: “Gafcon does this . . . ”
Yup — a grand total, it now appears, of six active Primates of provinces of the Anglican Commmunion engaging in “conciliar governance” among themselves.
How nice for them. Carry on.
RE: “No, it isn’t a problem, nor are they are a “distinct†subset.”
Of course, they’re a distinct subset — in fact the first thing informed people do is compare lists between the larger group of orthodox Global South primates and the subset of the Gafcon Primates, known helpfully as that subset called “Gafcon Primates.”
And yes, it’s a “problem” of which the Gafcon Primates are aware [hence their careful, often obscuring, rhetoric] and the Global South *and* orthodox Episcopalians *and* ACNA members — each and every group is aware it’s a problem, — and one for which all those groups has sometimes-conflicting solutions, too — though that’s fine if you don’t deem it a problem. I suppose we won’t look for a solution to the problem from you any time soon.
But the rest of us call for solutions all the time — as Phil Ashey has.
1. ‘conciliarism’ is not a subset concept. 2. ‘conciliarism’ does not create confessional documents and ask for others to sign up and augment the subset.
[blockquote] “Yup—a grand total, it now appears, of six active Primates of provinces of the Anglican Commmunion engaging in “conciliar governance†among themselves.”[/blockquote]
Thank you for agreeing with me.
[blockquote] “Of course, they’re a distinct subset” [/blockquote]
No, they aren’t, or at least not in any sense relevant to the discussion, i.e. your assertion that it is an (unspecified) “problem”.
[blockquote] “I suppose we won’t look for a solution to the problem from you any time soon.” [/blockquote]
Since you have still not stated what “the problem” is, you are 100% right in that!
[blockquote] “But the rest of us call for solutions all the time—as Phil Ashey has.” [/blockquote]
Errr no, Phil Ashey in his article sees Gafcon as the solution, so he is not in any “rest of us” with you.
[blockquote] “‘conciliarism’ is not a subset concept.” [/blockquote]
Yes it is, always in fact.
The Global South only represents 20 of the provinces in the Anglican Communion, but that doesn’t mean they can’t practice conciliar government among themselves.
For that matter, the Anglican Communion does not include the majority of bishops in the world (the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are missing for a start) but that doesn’t mean they can’t practice conciliar government among themselves.
As soon as you try to argue “subsets” you face the problem (this time a real problem) that every group on earth is a subset of someone else. And it misses the point: Conciliar government means government by council, as opposed to government by one person or by oligarchy.
[blockquote] “‘conciliarism’ does not create confessional documents and ask for others to sign up and augment the subset.” [/blockquote]
There is nothing in the concept of conciliar government which says that a group’s membership can’t be subject to agreement on confessional documents. Actually most churches in most periods during the history of Christianity have worked on that basis.
OK, it is now my turn. No, it isn’t!
The Council of Nicaea was not a subset meeting. It was a Council. All came. They banged it out.
Conciliarism is the Bishops in Council and not a single Pope. Conciliarism is the Bishops in Council and not a confession seeking further signatories.
But leaving that fact of conciliarism aside. You refer to 20 Primates of the GS. But that is not what Gafcon is. Gafcon is a subset of the orthodox Primates of the GS.
I believe this is the point #6 is making, but she can speak for herself.