The emerging figure that is crucial in the softening of the line on schism is the Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, who has become the key player on the Anglican conservative wing, shifting the emphasis from the US and African conservatives to Australia. Significantly, the Pittsburgh Bishop Bob Duncan, who heads the US conservative grouping Common Cause, is not in Israel although he is named as one of the Global Anglican Future Conference (Gafcon) leadership team in the programme.
In a recent interview in the Sydney Morning Herald, Dr Jensen said that it would be legally impossible to engineer schism. The Episcopal Church of the US has already launched a number of legal actions against breakaway parishes and bishops. Dr Jensen said: “I can’t. I’m part of a constitution, which is virtually unchangeable, of the Australian Church. I wouldn’t want to. I love the Church. It would be bad for Christianity, bad for the Gospel.” He continued: “I think there is going to be an evolution in the Anglican Communion. It has occurred. And what the Future Conference is going to work out is how to live best within that evolution. That’s its business.”
Archbishop Nzimbi backed this interpretation. Speaking at Gafcon he said: “Gafcon is going to help the Anglican Church. We are still Anglicans.”
Archbishop Henry Orombi, of Uganda, also at the press conference last night, said: “What we are meeting for here is not to plan to walk away. We are meeting to renew our commitment, to renew our faith, to get a sense of direction of what we can be as Anglicans. We do not want to start a new Church.”
A puzzling development.
If there is to be no schism, then the “Global South” Churches continue in communion with Canterbury and (more to the point) with the Episcopal Church. If that is true, and particularly if they are consciously adopting a strategy of “reform from within,” then what possible excuse is there for any bishop [i]not[/i] to go to Lambeth? Lambeth is the only remaining opportunity to “reform” the Anglican Church. If the Episcopal Church emerges from Lambeth without having been disciplined in any way, then its innovations will have been endorsed ([i]de facto[/i]) by the Anglican Communion, and its errors will have become, in effect, the teaching of the Communion. There will be nothing left to reform.
This summer is the last chance for Anglicans to stand for the Gospel. “Reform from within” is nothing more than going along to get along.
This is the real quote from Ruth’s blog
[blockquote]
“I’m not saying to the Americans: ‘Pull your head in,’ ” says Jensen. “We said that five years ago, and that didn’t work. They will do their thing. But if they do do that thing, then their freedom frees us as well.” [/blockquote]
So its a church within a church. The conservative dioceses will now operate freely in the territory of other bishops. The liberals will react and do the same. Geographic boundaries are gone. Everyone keeps what they have now. No more fighting and trying to get ‘the other side’ to obey your version of the gospel. Each side can focus on mission and stop demonising the other side. Peace reigns, and in 50 years the strongest will be the only ones left standing.
I still think the best solution is for the orthodox provinces to develop their own covenant and sign it among themselves. A formal break wouldn’t be necessary right away, but it would make clear who was upholding the traditional faith and who wasn’t. Those outside could decide to either allign themselves with the signers individually or in groups (as in the various Global South outreach churches) or decide to continue “walking apart.”
#1 – It is, indeed, puzzling. My take runs along the following lines: The reasserting side didn’t start the fire of schism, those who ardently advocate and push the New Thang quasi-gospel have done that over the last 40 or so years, as they’re the ones who chopped up and gathered the kindling, loaded up their accelerants and poured same on the kindling, struck the match, and fan the flame of schism every single day with pronouncements of demonstratively one-sided tolerance; proof-texting, misuse, abuse, and outright ignorance of Holy Writ; pre-emptive non-canonical polity strikes; non-canonical inhibitions and depositions; anti-Christian actions of all sorts – ad nauseam.
Now, the GAFCON leaders, particularly those who are still canonically resident in TEC, appear to be poised to announce an in-place (staying for now in TEC),[b] active, ever-militant, orthodox true Gospel witness[/b] that stands in the middle of the withering fire from the revisionists and asks for more. Be cautioned, anything less than out-and-out militancy is failure, plain and simple.
That’s my guess on the puzzlement we are all experiencing right now, FWIW.
The experience of the American church is that the “inside out” strategy doesn’t work. The “outside” strategy has it’s own challenges, of course: continued splintering over personalities, petty differences, etc.
One has to ask, why this stance when all the strong indicators pointed to the creation of a seperate province or a seperate Anglican Communion? When changes such as this course change occurs, I look for other “behind the scenes” explanations for the change. What has transpired that would bring about a sudden change to the publicly touted orthodox trajectory? I suspect there has been some agreement between the high ranking orthodox leaders and the ABC. The ABC gets what he wants: No schism. The orthodox get what they want.
What do the orthodox want? The orthodox want many things. I suspect above all, given that they will not get a disciplining of TEC et al, at the very least they want mechanisms in place that will insure this will not progress or occur again. My suspicion is that the COVENANT is the linchpin responsible for the halt to secession. I suspect that there will be a strongly crafted Covenant which will bar events such as the ordination of GR without the consent of the wider communion. I suspect the orthodox look at such a mechanism as the means of ridding the communion of TEC, albeit through a smoother mechanism. I suspect the ABC will find it “more palatable” to support a strong Covenant rather than see the schism on his watch. To him, I suspect it is the lesser of the two undesirable options. Just my ramblings!
One reason that the orthodox would not develop their own covenant is that they might still believe an acceptable covenant can be worked out and signed by the majority of the communion. Or at least they don’t want to subvert that process (yet) by coming up with their own. I have my doubts.
Re #1. It is not really that puzzling on closer examination. This was (in hindsight) always a possible outcome for GAFCON. Abp. Jensen has clearly been arguing for over a year that the only way to hold the Anglican Communion together is to redefine it as a rather looser federation of provinces and dioceses, some of which are in full communion with one another and others in more-or-less impaired communion. That seems to be the consensus in Jerusalem.
The contrary argument in the Global South, that the Communion should become a unitary Anglican Church with disciplinary authority over its provinces, sounds good in theory but has virtually no support in practice. Even Nigeria has insisted that it should be free to define its partners without outside interference. If so, there is no way forward other than to either dissolve the Communion or redefine it with strengthened provincial independence to enter into fellowships within the larger community. In effect, this is another “two-tier” scheme.
This situation has some precedent in Sydney, which is in full communion with the Church of England in South Africa (a group that stands in almost exactly the same relation to the official Anglican Church of Southern Africa as the Reformed Episcopal Church does to TEC). Most Anglican provinces have ecumenical partners (as in the TEC/ELCA and CofE/Porvoo arrangements) that are not in communion with all other Anglican entities.
It is only an extension of that idea to support the notion that global Anglicanism should be defined by a network of bilateral communion agreements rather than by full communion among churches defined by their relation to a center in Canterbury. In such a redefined Communion, there is no necessary implication that being Anglican means full recognition of orders of (or by) other Anglican churches. It is particularly significant for Sydney that there would not necessarily be full mutual recognition of the sacraments—Eucharist as well as Holy Orders—since that would give them room to institute lay presidency.
Along with that goes the idea that one Anglican entity need not necessarily respect the territorial jurisdiction of all others. Just as Sydney recognizes two separate overlapping Anglican entities in South Africa, so it could recognize two or more in the United States (any of which might or might not be recognized by the See of Canterbury). That is already the case for Rwanda, Nigeria, Southern Cone, Kenya, Uganda, and South India, each of which recognizes not only its own missions in North America but also the others.
We cannot discount the practical considerations in Sydney. The diocese is immensely wealthy because its grebe lands now include much of downtown, but its ownership of those assets depends on maintaining its continuity with the grants made to the Church of England in Australia. If the diocese were to split from the Anglican Church of Australia, the resulting litigation would dwarf anything even remotely possible anywhere else in the world. Sydney can live with Anglo-Catholics in The Murray and liberals in Perth because the organization of their national church is so loose. That experience leads them to believe that they can live with other people in the world holding erroneous views and calling themselves Anglicans if the organization of the Communion is made similarly loose.
#8. Thanks, your analysis was helpful particularly in understanding Sydney’s perspective. I still believe that for the word Anglican to mean anything substantial we must have an agreed on core of beliefs. That may be beyond our ability at this point. The issue of WO comes immediately to mind. As an example Rwanda and its own mission outreach, the AMiA, have differing views on the subject.
Dale Rye (#8),
Thanks very much for your illuminating analysis.
This clarifies for me, among other things, the place of classic Anglo-Catholicism (my background when, long ago, I was an Anglican) in the nascent re-alignment of Anglicanism: to wit, no place at all. If Sydney is in the driver’s seat and the result of re-alignment is to be a hodge-podge of denominations in varying degrees of “communion” with one another, then there will be no relationship whatever between [i]communio in sacris[/i] and full agreement in the faith. And no Church body in such a melange could make even a faintly plausible claim to be the Apostolic Church.
Sad.
I have always thought the notion that GAFCON’s intent was to formally seperate from Canterbury was false. Granted a small group connected with GAFCON may have advocated that, but primates such as Orombi and Akinola have always been very clear that that was not their plan.
I think that what Jensen is saying is that the organization known as the “Anglican Communion” is in reality a federation, and that is it all but impossible for any current Anglican Province to be expelled. There is nothing to gain from voluntarily withdrawing from the “Anglican Communion”. As Dale says, there is not currently a climate in the Global South that would permit a unitary global Anglican church to be molded from the disparate Global South Provinces.
So my supposition has always been that the GAFCON Provinces will simply begin to create – within the current “Anglican Communion”, a new orthodox communion. This will allow them to recognize a new North American jurisdiction. This will allow them to create their own Covenant. This will allow them to wait out the slow death of the liberal Western Provinces, and gradually reabsorb the rest of the Anglican Communion. If the last 10 years have taught us anything they have taught us that:
1) There are no enforceable rules for “Anglican Communion” Provinces to follow.
2) The Archbishop of Canterbury only needs lip service.
3) The Instruments of Unity can be ignored without consequence.
I think that GAFCON has simply accepted this. The failure of Dar Es Salaam has resulted in the acceptance that the ABC and Instruments of Unity (i.e. Communion discipline) approach will not work. This means there are no boundaries for the “Anglican Communion”, nor any rules. So that frees GAFCON to be creative and create a new “communion” within the “Anglican Communion”.
That is why so many of the GAFCON bishops won’t attend Lambeth. Lambeth is now irrelevant. The ACO is irrelevant. Expect the focus to completely change from calling for discipline from the now discredited Instruments of Unity, to a new positive organization of this new Communion within the Federation.
? So it will be a comunion with two sides that don’t recognize each other? Don’t share clergy or communion? And one side will depose clergy who switch to the other with whom they claim to be in communion. By that logic we should call ourselves Roman Catholics. What I think I see is a carefully crafted fiction.
#12. I agree. There are really two different communions now and the differences between them will become increasingly clear, just as they have in the US. People will eventually have to make a choice between the two.
Re #13: I think the point of Abp. Jensen’s statement is precisely that people will [i]not[/i] have to make a choice. They can continue simply going along their own path while ignoring anyone who doesn’t agree with them. They can call themselves Anglican even if they aren’t in communion with over half the other Anglican provinces. They don’t have to make a choice to reject TEC or Canterbury, but will just ignore them as irrelevant and build relationships with individual parishes and dioceses (whether within or without TEC).
14, and it’s no longer a communion. It’s just called one. And TEC will never accept it.
God bless GAFCON. Clarity and a way forward with integrity and charity is being discerned. A federation may be the best solution where member churches include all stripes of Anglicanism and allows them full freedom to be who they are. Some examples: Lutheran World Federation, World Reformed Fellowship, Alliance of Baptists, World Methodist Council, The Union of Utrecht, The World Bishops Council, etc.
The non-communion communion. We all call ourselves Anglican even if we havn’t a thing in common. If you want to live a lie it works.
I am confused about the statement that Bob Duncan is not there. I thought he gave an address last week? He’s my bishop, and I’ve been praying for him there. Am I mistaken?
Helen (#18), it’s my understanding that +Duncan was in Jordan for the leaders’ consultation. He stayed behind to host the Pakistani and other bishops from Muslim countries (who could not enter Israel) when the Jordan conference moved early to Israel following ++Akinola’s visa problems. I also read somewhere that he had some other urgent commitment that kept him from being in Jerusalem for the second and longer portion of GAFCON.
So, yes he was in Jordan for a few days, but has not, to my knowledge, been in Jerusalem. Hope this helps. I’m nowhere near GAFCON, but have been doing extensive reading of all the reports.
–elfgirl
I think # 8 and # 11 have hit the nail on the head. But I think there is also a spiritual side to this thinking that is driving it. The GAFCON Bishops believe they are serving the Lord in what they are doing. They do not believe TEC and ACofC and much of CofE are serving the Lord but rather serving the culture of the age. So the GAFCON Bishops are basically putting their money where their faith is. They are basically saying we believe that what we are doing is “of God,” and what the hierchy of the Western churches is doing is not of God. If we (the GAFCON Bishops) are right, our work will flourish and be permanent and the work of the Western churches will not and will decay and fall away. So all things are possible to GAFCON churches … including continuing evangelism and establishing new churches in US, CAN, ENG, EUROPE, BRAZIL, anywhere in the world. In time, GAFCON Bishops are saying, our “orthodox” churches will be the churches of the new world that have overcome secularism and the culture of the ages, while TEC and its ilk will have long died when the New Age culture has died. In other words, the GAFCON Bishops are taking the long term view and making long term plans, not doing the popular thing of trying to start a new church and sticking a finger in the eye of the AbofC. I applaud them for this faithful response to our Lord’s calling. And those of us reasserters still in TEC can hope to be a part of these wonderful and far-reaching plans one day. As Tiny Tim would say, “God bless them every one.”
This is actually good news, at least to me. Having decided to remain in the Communion, I certainly hope the GAFCON attendees have thought out the obvious next step: Attendance at Lambeth in force, the rejection of ++Cantaur’s laughable “ndaba” gerrymandering and the censure of heretic Provinces. When you think about it, why should the heretics be allowed to run the Communion? The South has the votes, let them use them.
Jeffersonian: No, you are thinking in pre-GAFCON terms. I think that what the GAFCON attendees have realized is that the no matter what is decided at Lambeth, the western liberals retain sufficient control over Lambeth Palace and the ACO that nothing will result. I think that GAFCON represents the creation of a communion within the Anglican Communion/Federation. This new communion has no intention of leaving the “Anglican Communion” but its focus will no longer be to try to implement Communion discipline on TEC, given that it is now clear that the current Communion bureaucracy is so infested with liberals that discipline is not possible.
Their energies and money will not be to go to the Lambeth Conference and win a meaningless victory which will only be ignored. Rather, their energies and money will be spent on creating mission initiatives and a unified new jurisdiction for North America. To most of the GAFCON bishops, Lambeth is purely a waste of time.
The GAFCON trend is not to continue a fruitless battle for Communion discipline. GAFCON is not leaving the Communion but is preparing the groundwork for the long-term future of the Communion, per Billy’s comments in post #20 above.
If this is how it works out, what that probably means on the local level is that people will have to leave TEC as best they can or decide to live with what ever TEC does. In other words their is no change for those currently in TEC. On the plus side new congregations can be formed that are completely free of TEC.
Gafcon will officially be in the AC, but will simply ignore it and create its own structures. Like I said, a non-communion communion.
No wonder that the Roman Church and even the Orthodox hierarchy are more and more realising how much damage the reformation really did to CofE and to ‘Anglicanism’. The ‘Via Media’was just a faux dream after all!
#23, I think you are correct, as far as short term. It will be business as usual for those of us still in TEC … either go to a TEC parish that is reasserting or try to find one outside of TEC that is Anglican and reasserting. I would expect, however, after GAFCON, that the choices will expand exponentially. I think the AbofC’s ignoring the demands of the GS bishops and ignoring DES communique, as well as Dromantine and Windsor, has basically freed and unleashed the reasserting part of the AC to do as it will in terms of evangelism, church planting, and spreading the Word. There may even be new loose organizations for reasserting parishes in reappraising dioceses to join – or certainly companion churches and dioceses to form up. For instance, why not have a St Mark’s Church in D. of Atlanta form a companion relationship with a St Mark’s Church in D. of S.C. or D. of Pittsburgh or any church in West Indies, Nigeria or Rwanda or Uganda or Kenya (some of which is already occurring). The problem is continuing to send money to reappraising dioceses and 815. But there are some creative ways to at least reduce that, if reasserting churches care to use them. The Lord will provide a way for all of us, if we listen and follow Him, the same as the GAFCON Bishops appear to be doing.
This has all the appearances of a decision on paper and endless vacillation in fact. As others have noted here, there can be NO communion set up in the way that ++Jensen has suggested because the TEC view of Christianity and the traditional view are contradictory – more than contradictory, inimical, hostile. I can only hope that GAFCON proceeds along some other line than the above, for it is political/ ecclesiological mugwumpery. The liberal church is like poison ivy;if you tolerate it in any way it will spread, so that the more it takes, the harder it is to destroy it. Dale’s analysis is interesting, but I fail to see that it touches reality at any point. Br. Michael is exactly right; he is facing the reality. Larry
[blockquote] The problem is continuing to send money to reappraising dioceses and 815. [/blockquote]
I think its more than just the money. Its that the bishop of the Diocese can veto who gets appointed as the next rector. And that the choice of bishop can be vetoed by the other bishops. IMHO it would be better to make a clean break from the TEC structures – staying in TEC would just mean more years of fighting and frustration. TEC have shown time and again that they will crush any opposition to their line of teaching. Its time to end the fighting and start evangelizing.
TEC and the church of Canada are too far gone to save. The church of England is at a critical point. If they push through WO, once those opposed have left, the power base will swing to the liberals and it will go the same way as TEC and Canada, and slowly die. But its not dead yet, and can be saved. Unfortunately the Evangelicals have splintered and are so busy fighting themselves, I don’t think it will be saved. The evangelicals are leaving in droves for non denominational churches.
#26, I understand your point, but the opposite seems to be true. The “liberal church” is not spreading. It is slowly dying; witness the diminished ASA and membership rolls of TEC and even more the Presbyterians. Witness the continued growth of the RC and Southern Baptist churches in the Western Hemisphere, and the relative stability of the UMC churches (the latter of which has waffled but not given in, yet). GAFCON is saying that it is not giving up its Anglicanism for this “liberal church’s” brand, and it is going to continue and will be the surviving church, when this liberal church finally dies of its own rottenness and irrelevancy. Unfortunately for you and me, we shall probably not be around to see the worm turn, but that is ok with God, I think.
But what is happening at GAFCON is no different than what Archbishop Orombi talked about in May in his interview with AnglicanTV – not to split, but to shift the agendas of the Communion.
#27, you are correct that TEC will continue to do those things to crush opposition within its ranks. But the more that is done, the more opportunity for GAFCON to plant a new church and build a new diocese within North America. I would fear the more tolerant bishops who are wolves in sheeps clothing. They are the ones who will take the longest to root out. The hardball bishops will lose their fiefdoms much quicker, as more people leave to go to Anglican churches with the Word of God being taught and preached. A clean break will not make things move any quicker than staying within the husk of the organization and ignoring the current occupant (TEC) while you move your own plant in. In fact, as you move your own plant in and spread the true gospel, the “violent” reaction of TEC will hasten its departure from this world. I truly think this is the best way to go about it. And the beauty is that the invitations to Lambeth this year show that there are no consequences for anything that is done within the AC. So CANA can expand at will, as can AMiA, and any other plants that want to start up under the Anglican name. Bp Calvacanti in Brazil can beginning setting up new churches in other dioceses in Brazil. What can happen to him, not get invited to Lambeth? That’s already happened. Bp Mimms and Bp Guernsey can go full bore … what can happen to them? Not get invited to Lambeth? There are no rules or consequences in the AC. So evangelize the world. I think that is exactly what GAFCON intends to do … and God go with them.
You ‘orthodox’ Anglicans are still totally blind!
Not a chance! My eyes are wide open! I knew what I was doing when I voted to take our diocese out of TEC, and I don’t regret it one bit! We’re creating the new province right under TEC’s noses, and they don’t like the competition. Might make them look bad!
Billy, I’m with you. The purpose of the Christian church is to spread the gospel of the forgiveness of sins and eternal life through Jesus Christ, and obedience to His will and His word.
The faithful in the communion have found that they must break with those who persist in proclaiming another gospel. Considering the viciousness of their opponents, and the great patience and effort made by the orthodox to drive back revisionist innovations (only to be rebuffed, and then sold down the river by the ABC), GAFCON-Common Cause is steadfastly looking to the Lord for direction as they head out into uncharted territory.
Jesus Christ said, “Follow Me.” If the GAFCON folks and their allies are really looking to take the Master up on His invitation, then the Good Shepherd will surely guide them.
“You are a hiding place for me;
you preserve me from trouble;
you surround me with shouts of deliverance. Selah
I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go;
I will counsel you with my eye upon you.” (Psalm 32:7-8)
The lack of decisive action at GAFCON should in and of itself not be too surprising. The orthodox have long been caught in the predicament of a commitment to both Anglican identity and biblical truth, the problem being that Anglican identity in the west has morphed into a pluralistic vision which is antithetical to the gospel. TEC has charted a course forward promoting this pluralistic vision under the guise of unity, tolerance, and inclusion, and the orthodox have responded by reasserting biblical authority and a traditional vision of the faith. Council by council, statement by statement, the orthodox have declared the impossibility of communion with a syncretistic and revised version of christianity, but more than words are required to effect a revival of Anglicanism that will encompass the world. Lack of action has perpetuated the splinting of the orthodox, and the formation of multiple jurisdictions. The decisions of GAFCON are likely to continue this process, rather than provide a grounded center, what we are left with is no center at all.
Continued relationship, or even loosely defined association with the new world religion of TEC, will leave us compromising, or compromised. I lament the loss of an historic moment for revival.
Beg pardon, Billy, but the real liberal church is spreading. TEC will die out because is has no core beliefs, but Scientism is gaining adherents all the time. It has powerful core beliefs, and it produces real results on its promises. This is the REAL liberal church because its only standard is, “Can you measure it?” Its goal is to turn this world into a paradise where a man can live a long long time, perhaps even forever. Larry