(ACNS) The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has responded to the final declaration of the Global Anglican Future Conference with the following statement:
The Final Statement from the GAFCON meeting in Jordan and Jerusalem contains much that is positive and encouraging about the priorities of those who met for prayer and pilgrimage in the last week. The ”˜tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues. I agree that the Communion needs to be united in its commitments on these matters, and I have no doubt that the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON’s deliberations. Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion
However, GAFCON’s proposals for the way ahead are problematic in all sorts of ways, and I urge those who have outlined these to think very carefully about the risks entailed.
A ”˜Primates’ Council’ which consists only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion will not pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion. And any claim to be free to operate across provincial boundaries is fraught with difficulties, both theological and practical ”“ theological because of our historic commitments to mutual recognition of ministries in the Communion, practical because of the obvious strain of responsibly exercising episcopal or primatial authority across enormous geographical and cultural divides.
Two questions arise at once about what has been proposed. By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council? And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?
No-one should for a moment impute selfish or malicious motives to those who have offered pastoral oversight to congregations in other provinces; these actions, however we judge them, arise from pastoral and spiritual concern. But one question has repeatedly been raised which is now becoming very serious: how is a bishop or primate in another continent able to discriminate effectively between a genuine crisis of pastoral relationship and theological integrity, and a situation where there are underlying non-theological motivations at work? We have seen instances of intervention in dioceses whose leadership is unquestionably orthodox simply because of local difficulties of a personal and administrative nature. We have also seen instances of clergy disciplined for scandalous behaviour in one jurisdiction accepted in another, apparently without due process. Some other Christian churches have unhappy experience of this problem and it needs to be addressed honestly.
It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion. If they are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve. This challenge is one of the most significant focuses for the forthcoming Lambeth Conference. One of its major stated aims is to restore and deepen confidence in our Anglican identity. And this task will require all who care as deeply as the authors of the statement say they do about the future of Anglicanism to play their part.
The language of ”˜colonialism’ has been freely used of existing patterns. No-one is likely to look back with complacency to the colonial legacy. But emerging from the legacy of colonialism must mean a new co-operation of equals, not a simple reversal of power. If those who speak for GAFCON are willing to share in a genuine renewal of all our patterns of reflection and decision-making in the Communion, they are welcome, especially in the shaping of an effective Covenant for our future together.
I believe that it is wrong to assume we are now so far apart that all those outside the GAFCON network are simply proclaiming another gospel. This is not the case; it is not the experience of millions of faithful and biblically focused Anglicans in every province. What is true is that, on all sides of our controversies, slogans, misrepresentations and caricatures abound. And they need to be challenged in the name of the respect and patience we owe to each other in Jesus Christ.
I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ”˜wait for one another’. I would say the same to those in whose name this statement has been issued. An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents.
“However, GAFCON’s proposals for the way ahead are problematic in all sorts of ways, and I urge those who have outlined these to think very carefully about the risks entailed.”
THERE IS A LION IN THE STREET!
Prov 13:22
Don
Astounding, breathtaking cluelessness. He just doesn’t get it, does he?
A quick and challenging response. Rowan Williams is patient, but he is not stupid.
I have been looking for Rowan Williams to do something about the Anglican crisis for years now. All he does is undermine all the decisions of the other instruments of unity to solve it. Enough is enough! Unless he decides to start cooperating with the other Primates, he will be set aside for good. And the sooner the better!
What is stunning is Rowan’s inability to understand or acknowledge that he himself created the necessity for GAFCON by the void of leadership that has developed in his time as ABC.
[blockquote] ‘wait for one another’[/blockquote]
The scriptural advice is sound, but in practice this can lead to inaction (which seems like a typical AoC response), and “waiting” depends on one’s perspective. Are you stopping and waiting for someone to catch up to you, or are you asking someone to slow down until you can catch up to them?
Dear ABC, “WAIT” for what?
Gloria in SC
[i]I believe that it is wrong to assume we are now so far apart that all those outside the GAFCON network are simply proclaiming another gospel. This is not the case …[/i]
His Grace is entitled to his opinion. But no one is “assuming” that TEC has another Gospel; the use of the word “assume” here suggests (rather disrespectfully) that the GAFCON folks are accusing TEC of proclaiming another Gospel without adequate examination, analysis, prayer, and discernment. On the contrary, conservative Anglicans have weighed and considered a considerable body of evidence and have advisedly drawn the conclusion (not “assumed”) that TEC is proclaiming another Gospel.
In any case it is not “all those outside the GAFCON network” who are being accused of proclaiming another Gospel, but only those bishops and Churches which have, by their own actions and words, placed themselves outside the communion of the Catholic Church. All Anglican Churches who are in fact faithful to the Catholic faith are excluded from this accusation. If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.
[i]By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council?[/i]
By the authority to “mark and avoid” (Ro 16.17). Churches have the authority and the responsibility to recognize and dissociate from false teachers.
[i]And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?[/i]
There is no situation of “overlapping and competing jurisdictions.” A false Church which has been rightly cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church [viz. TEC] is not a “jurisdiction” of any kind, but a conventicle of which the Apostolic Church need take no account. TEC and CCP are “overlapping and competing jurisdictions only for someone who recognizes both as authentic manifestations of the Catholic Church. If His Grace recognizes both, then the “overlapping and competing” problem is only his problem, not GAFCON’s problem.
I find it rather amusing that Rowan decides to [b]finally[/b] speak up when his position is in jeapordy. You’re right… he don’t get it.
“IT’S ALLLIIIIIVVVEE !!!!!!!!!”
Talk, talk, talk dither, dither, dither. If he can keep the balls all in the air long enough he can retire and let the next AoC try and solve the mess.
When I read this:
[i]The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province[/i]
my instinct was to shout “prove it” at the computer. If the Jerusalem Declaration were put up for a vote, it would certainly be rejected in TEC, Canada, and almost certainly Scotland, Wales, Australia and New Zealand.
Turn it into a Lambeth Resolution, perhaps ++Rowan? Let’s see if you’re right. Even if it passes overwhelmingly (per Lambeth 1.10 in 1998), there would still be the issue of what to do to discipline those whose heterodox doctrine puts them outside the boundaries of traditional Anglicanism and the faith once delivered.
Yes, I said boundaries. And that is precisely the issue.
“The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues.”
He takes what is clear and objective and tries to make it ambiguous and subjective, so that no action or judgment can be justified against enemies of the orthodox gospel.
“Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion.”
This statement is just not true as bishops have apologized for evangelism and the Presiding Bishop of perhaps the most influential (apparently) province has stated that Jesus is not unique and has traded evangelism for UN initiatives.
#4 above is correct in stating that the Archbishop’s vacuous, impotent leadership has been a catalyst in the necessity of GAFCON and the subsequent resolution. Before criticizing GAFCON or labeling the proposed road ahead as fearful, he needs to examine his own role.
There is no doubt he is cleverly ambiguous. He reminds me of Pinocchio in Shrek 3 trying to avoid telling the truth while at the same time trying to avoid making his nose grow, so he ends up saying next to nothing in very many words.
The Archbishop has offered a very charitable response. The problem remains who decides who is with God or Against? I can just say you are all unorthodox. You can say the same for me. The GAFCON statement essentially creates the viruses it seeks to destroy by entering into other territories, imperially.
Don Anderson raises the issue of leadership, but I think there are several ways to understand “leadership.” I think Rowan has done a better job than expected because he understands that is role is not pope. All he can do is invite mature adults to talk to each other. We might want more – but then, isn’t that a problem of our own inability to regulate ourselves?
Strong leadership isn’t telling other people what to do: it is, however, a matter of maintaining one’s own integrity. The ABC is maintaining the territorial integrity of the system. And that is his role.
Perhaps that main task before Americans is to learn how to speak with teach other before expecting other churches to save us.
Who needs the archdaddy? It’s enough for him to say to his children that we shouldn’t go into each other’s houses and claim the inheritances we think are ours.
Given the hostility and anger that underscored the document, the Archbishop wrote a good letter.
Well, Your Grace, then lead or follow or stand aside.
Piece looks like it was drafted by 815 for their sock puppet in Lambeth Palace.
[blockquote]The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province [/blockquote]
I have one thing to say to ++Rowan: B001.
re #12 – I found the vast majority of the document acceptable, but some parts a bit weird. The 1662 prayerbook? Most of my youth group use computers. Whatever.
The 39 articles? I live in America. I don’t read the homilies. Perhaps these are minor quibbles.
I’m also unsure of what “consensus” means in the GAFCON case. The Catholic consensus? The consensus of people after people learned to read? It does sound a bit anti-reason to me. I don’t recall a word on the use of reason. But that word “hell” did jump out at me. What kind of hell?
And Rowan Williams did note how the bishops were wanting and having the cake. It was as if they were saying “We want to go into other people’s dioceses, but nobody can come into ours because we know what God wants and they don’t.” This seems a lot like spiritual tyranny and imperialism of a different sort.
Otherwise, the Jerusalem Document is fine.
Methinks the motto of ABofC should be changed to “I’d rather not choose this day; perhaps not at all.”
This is a man who is either supremely conflicted and cannot make a definitive decision, or is supremely calculating and Machiavellian. I am beginning to believe that when everybody says he wants to hold the Anglican Communion together, what they really should say is he wants to hold together all the significan Anglican Communion financial contributors that support the lifestyle to which the western Anglican world’s bishops and their satraps have become accustomed. Remember, not making a decision is, in actuality, making a decision.
In my heart I believe Rowan agrees with most of what TEC is doing and only has problems with the way in which they are doing it. I wonder if he will have anything to say when TEC intensifies the show trials and purges?
I probably have much more to comment on regarding ++Rowan’s response, but I want to first remind folks that ACNS published NOTHING about GAFCON (at least as of last night), not even the final statement.
Perhaps they have now rectified that. I’m about to check. But to publish ++Rowan’s response in a total vacuum, without in essence giving the GAFCON leaders a chance to make the case re: GAFCON for themselves, seems to me to be incredibly arrogant and irresponsible.
After all, ++Rowan is supposed to be merely the “first among equals.” But as in Orwell’s fiction, it seems some Primates are more equal than others. ACNS seems to totally disregard the shared and unanimous concerns of 7 Anglican Primates, but jumps into action when ++Rowan speaks. Sad.
ok, for the record, ACNS includes a link to the GAFCON final statement in the online version of Rowan’s response above.
see here:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2008/6/30/ACNS4417
But that’s it. Nothing else on GAFCON anywhere on ACNS. NOTHING.
[i] Personal comment against another commenter deleted by elf. Please, let’s stay on topic. [/i]
-Elf Lady
This is like a funeral, where everybody knows that there’s a casket in the room, but they look at the flowers.
Rowan, you’re done.
AC, you’re done. Thanks to TEC and Rowan.
AC of the two-thirds world: Write us off and make Jerusalem the new center of the Anglican Communion.
TEC: You’re losing in court, and losing the people because you will sell your soul for the mess of stew called heterodoxy.
KJS and Gang of the HOB: Enjoy it while you can.
An encouraging part of the statement is this line:
[blockquote] Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion [/blockquote]
I’d like to understand if he thinks that those bishops who don’t agree with the above statement in words and deed should face discipline, and if so, what that discipline should look like? My understanding is that there are many bishops in the Anglican Communion who would not sign up to the above statement. (The majority may, but a significant minority would not)
Who would effect that discipline? There is no body in the communion which would pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion in order to effect that discipline? And where would they draw the line? That process would be fraught with problems. Lets just ask everyone to sign a statement saying they are prepared to uphold that statement. If they are not prepared to sign then they excommunicate themselves. If they do sign, that must mean they believe it. But we can’t judge if they do believe it or not. No, when they promote Borg and Spong and allow that to be taught in their diocese, we can’t really judge if they believe in that statement.
And when they do, we shouldn’t really interfere in their internal affairs, because that would create disorder. No, lets just maintain the status quo, until the church is completely secularised and the last generation leaves.
I know this is an American blog but you need to stand back for just one second. The Archbishop of Canterbury has never agreed with TEC acting unilaterally. He has criticised that time and time again, in his own understated way. This is not a defence of TEC. It is an attack on GAFCON because now he sees that GAFCON is directly attacking him and the instruments of the Anglican Communion. GAFCON has now stiffened the opposition, much as Japan did by attacking Pearl Harbour and bringing the US directly into war. Don’t underestimate the consequences. I suspect that there is a lot more affection and respect for Rowan Williams Communion-wide than there is, these days, for Archbishop Akinola. We will see.
The ABC is taking Scripture out of context. 1 Cor. 11:33 has to do with order during the communion service -waiting for individuals to be served the communion elements of cup and bread before taking the Lord’s Supper together. We have been waiting for the ABC to stand up and hold accountable those that have supported these new innovations of homosexuals in holy orders and gay marriages in the church. The ABC has failed to mark these innovations as heretical and stand with the clear teaching of Christ and His church for over 2,000 years against these sinful behaviours. Archbishop Rowan retire and let another take your position to lead this church to walk with the Lord Jesus Christ.
Say what?
Jerusalem Declaration:
[blockquote]8. We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.[/blockquote]
The Archbishop:
[blockquote]The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues. I agree that the Communion needs to be united in its commitments on these matters, and I have no doubt that the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON’s deliberations.[/blockquote]
Are there going to be resolutions at Lambeth? Or will the Conference merely “wish” to affirm these, but be prevented from doing so by its design?
Will the archbishop condemn TEC when it votes next summer to formally approve same-sex rites? I doubt it. And what are Americans and Canadians supposed to do while the Communion “waits” for resolution? Attend churches where nothing resembling the faith described in the Jerusalem Declaration is taught, where children will be misled, where relentless revisionist propaganda is pushed? There are NO parishes or dioceses which are “safe” beyond the departure of the present rector or bishop. None.
I suppose one should ask the good Dr. Williams, #24, what he’s going to do about all of these thing he disagrees with. I’m reminded of a passage in Troilus and Cressida:
THERSITES. Agamemnon-how if he had boils full, an over, generally?
AJAX. Thersites!
THERSITES. And those boils did run-say so. Did not the general run then? Were not that a botchy core?
AJAX. Dog!
THERSITES. Then there would come some matter from him; I see none now.
It is interesting how it took ABC 3 months to respond to TEC’s New Orleans statement last year in his “Advent Reflections”, but only 1 day to whip out an obviously well thought out response to GAFCON.
Badman, the ABC has done nothing except to undermine any attempt to move forward and deal with the situration. Fine, We will go forward without him. I think the point is that GAFCON no longer cares what he says.
I don’t see, John Wilkins #17, anybody saying, “We want to go into other people’s dioceses, but nobody can come into ours because we know what God wants and they don’t.†To the contrary, I’ve said many times I encourage ECUSA to blow its dwindling resources on spreading its false gospel in Nigeria or Kenya. I imagine Peter Akinola would laugh out loud at such a venture, as would Nigerians.
Risk???? What risk? THis is the PhD trained mind at work. Ignore, continue with imprtant work. What a loser.
I agree with and share some of the ABC’s reservations. But when he maintains that there isn’t another Gospel being preached and when he calls for “patience” and tells us to “wait,” I became very dismayed.
My goodness, surely he knows what’s going on here! And, if he truly doesn’t, he needs to pay a pastoral visit to some of the dioceses/parishes in turmoil, rather than relying on PB Umbridge’s spin! All he has to do is read the statements and media reports of TEC bishops putting their “new thing” into practice! But, really, all he has to do is step outside his palace and see how many of his own C of E bishops are disgruntled. This is a big slap in their faces, too!
As for the “wait” and “be patient” admonishments, well, that would only be possible with some reasonable belief and assurance that something will actually be done. The past five years, with all of its meetings and declarations don’t offer this assurance. A mother telling her child to “wait” and “be patient” as the child watches a cake baking in the oven can be trusted; an ABC who won’t enforce/act upon the resolutions and communiques his own body of bishops has passed cannot.
“No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, GAFCON.”
Was that “No” GAFCON, or “Yes” GAFCON?
“NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, GAFCON.”
Signed, Jim Trott
(From the Vicar of Dibley)
The Archbishop of Canterbury bemoans border crossings as contrary to Windsor. Someone needs to tell him to stop violating Windsor by inviting heretical bishops to Lambeth that shoud be “withdrawing” from participation in Communion wide events.
This is a defensive statement from someone who has obviously been stung by the press coverage of his marginalization within the Anglican Communion. It is funny how he counsels patience but does not practice it himself in his response to GAFCON. Is sleeping on it overnight the measure of deliberate prayer and reflection? Hardly. He might as well have gone and opened a blogspot.com account.
It is disappointing that a man who, by all accounts, is as spiritually attuned as ++Rowan can be as deaf to what the crisis demands and as paralyzed to act as he is. All of this could have been averted if he had not invited non-compliant bishops to Lambeth. There were other things he could have done, too (the sub-committee report comes to mind right off), but the simple gesture of inviting unrepentant schismatics to Lambeth is an action that says he is not serious about discipline within the communion. He has the authority vested in his office to invite and uninvite and he will not exercise it. The only meaningful prelude I can think of for an Anglican Covenant is that the ones who currently hold what little authority they do consistently exercise it in ways that uphold the deliberations and counsels of the Communion. Instead, ++Cantuar’s actions since 2003 have consistently made every resolution of the Primates and every recommendation of the Windsor Report as elastic as the schismatics want them to be.
Against my every fiber, I keep losing respect for a man whom I pray for daily and whose office I dearly cherish. I want to follow his lead–I’m no rabid Fed Con–but he gives me so little confidence in where he’s leading. Sad to see happen to an otherwise great man.
The PB has also responded with one paragraph: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_9840_ENG_HTM.htm
Both her statement and the ABC’s statement suggest that they have felt the shot across the bow. The game is changing underfoot, and their response is to try to reassert the old rules. The ABC’s declaration that the theology of the Jerusalem Statement would likely be endorsed around the Communion has to be an extra challenge for or to the PB. Lambeth will certainly be intriguing.
It is an astounding statement from the PB.[blockquote] “…the latest emission from GAFCON.” ![/blockquote] Holy Cow!
Sarah Hey has written a (the?) definitive response to the arch-ditherer. A sample:
[blockquote]Of course this will not “pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communionâ€â€”just as the actions of TEC do not “pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communionâ€. I would put it to the Archbishop of Canterbury that this matter of the Primates Council not “passing the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion†is a [i]feature[/i], not a flaw.[/blockquote]
Read it [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/13844/ ]all[/url]. Pass the test of legitimacy for [b]all[/b] the Communion? I am sure that Ms Schori and Mr Hilz aren’t pleased.
++Rowan wrote: “The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues.”
As some have suggested, it would be interesting to put this claim to the test and to put it up for a vote at Lambeth. Problem is, the primates who stand behind that declaration won’t be at Lambeth and without them, it’ll never get on the agenda. That would be a fitting way to have the Communion put up or shut up on the claims of Jerusalem Declaration.
Now, I understand and respect their decision not to attend–it is not wrong–but I do not think it is a good decision. Sometimes, in taking principled stances, we can make the right the enemy of the good, and this is one such case, I believe. The genius of the Jerusalem Declaration is that they are NOT leaving the Communion and are instead setting the terms of debate. A similar thing could happen at Lambeth.
For example, the signees of the Jerusalem Declaration do not need to take Communion with the schismatics from TEC, ACA or the CoE. They can refuse to participate in indaba groups with them, if they want. Or better yet: participate in those groups but preface any and all discussions with questions about Windsor and the ‘tenets of orthodoxy.’ If you do not get the answer you need, then you do not agree to speak with the pseudo-bishop across from you.
So while I think ++Rowan is mostly to blame for his utter mis-management of the Lambeth conference, it is unfortunate that the ones who could most authentically hold the banner of orthodoxy high will not be there. That’s a shame. Somehow, in my vainly optimistic moments, I keep hoping to hear news of an 11th hour reversal from ++Akinola, ++Kolini and the rest.
“GAFCON’s proposals for the way ahead are are problematic in all sorts of ways?” Sure they are…….for him and the rest of the revisionists! This archbishop has elected to sit by and do nothing to influence developments in a positive proactive way, and as a result, the Communion is a mess……and unless we reform it, it will be toast! Of course, some of us say “It’s ALREADY toast, so in that case, we might as well get on with the Second Anglican Reformation.”
Let’s roll!
Alas, not a trace of repentance on the part of ++Rowan Williams. Not any real sign of the need for actual discipline to be administered to the heretical, wayward provinces of the West. Yes, he still doesn’t get it.
This sort of response only confirms Cantaur’s drift into irrelevance. He will be rightly ignored as this New Reformation proceeds.
David Handy+
STOP THE PRESSES! The “Effect(s)” resulting from visible “Cause(s)” now seen as (apparently) surprisingly “problematic” and, heaven forbid, “risky”, as well? Unfortunately for the fragile creation known as the Anglican Communion, Dr. Williams’ decision to exclude Bishop Mimms from the upcoming Lambeth meeting seems decidedly not a unilateral, precipitating decision, flying in the face of even the Abp.’s own unfruitful and unfortunately doomed–although commendable–efforts to get Bishop Robinson to get off the Bishopric Express lo these years ago. Bishop Robinson should, of course, be excluded from Lambeth and stay out of London Town as well (which, assuredly would be the surprise-of-the-Church-Year if he did so), however, one sees Bp. Mimm’s exclusion as a quid pro quo on the part of Dr. Williams when an exclusive Robinson exclusion would have been the fair and consistent(!) thing to do, given what “nail” lead to the GAFCON “horseshoe” problem in the first place. Talk about personnel matters for the clergy(!)–the Mimms exclusion was like taking an unjustifiably severe action against one party in a marital dispute and not expecting a worse marital dispute than previously existed. Of course, it now appears that “territorial” problems–read Cause and Effect again–will be extant for the Communion in the near term at least until the right person to bring about some restoration work on this loosely-woven garment is able to pull off an effectual reweaving job. Given the situation, it appears Abp. Williams shouldn’t spend any time in at all in handwringing but use his writing hand to pen his signature to the letter of resignation that will enable the right restorer;successor (perhaps a bishop known to possess a high level of “street-smarts”) to get on with the restoration job ASAP.
#38,
I’m ROFL and gasping for breath. Just. Too. Funny!
Saw a couple of typographical errors in my last post:
line 4 should read “now a unilateral” vice “not a unilaterall” and
penultimate line should read “restorer-successor” vice “restorer; successor”.
I had problems opening the link to +KJS’ statement as posted in #37.
Here’s the link:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_98450_ENG_HTM.htm
and here’s the one paragraph statement in full:
[blockquote]Much of the Anglican world must be lamenting the latest emission from GAFCON. Anglicanism has always been broader than some find comfortable. This statement does not represent the end of Anglicanism, merely another chapter in a centuries-old struggle for dominance by those who consider themselves the only true believers. Anglicans will continue to worship God in their churches, serve the hungry and needy in their communities, and build missional relationships with others across the globe, despite the desire of a few leaders to narrow the influence of the gospel. We look forward to the opportunities of the Lambeth Conference for constructive conversation, inspired prayer, and relational encounters.
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori[/blockquote]
+N.T. Wright on the Statement: http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/06/summer-of-schis.html
Formatting is awkward to read. Here’s a bit:
I and my colleagues in this diocese, like so many others, share exactly in the sense that we are a fellowship ‘confessing the faith of Christ crucified, standing firm for the gospel in the global and Anglican context’, sharing too the goal ‘to reform, heal and revitalise the Anglican Communion and expand its mission to the world’ and ‘to give clear and certain witness to Jesus Christ’. For this reason, I know that the GAFCON leaders can’t have intended to imply (as a ‘suspicious’ reading of their text might suggest) that they are the only ones who really believe all this, that they and they alone care about such things. The rest of us, no doubt – including several of us who were not invited to GAFCON – are eager to share in any fresh movements of the Spirit that are going ahead. And as we do so I know that the GAFCON leaders would want us to express the various questions that naturally come to mind as we contemplate what they have said to us. Just as they wouldn’t want anyone to swallow uncritically the latest pronouncement from Canterbury or New York, so clearly they wouldn’t want us merely to glance at their document, see that it’s ‘all about the gospel’, and then conclude that we must sign up without thinking through what’s being said and why. It is in that spirit that I raise certain questions which seem to me important precisely because of our shared goals (the advancement of the gospel), our shared context (the enormous challenges of contemporary society and of a church often muddled in theology and ethics and lacking the structures to cope), and our shared heritage (the Anglican tradition with its Articles, Prayer Books and historic roots).
Central to these questions is the puzzle about the new proposed structure. I am sure the GAFCON organisers are as horrified as I am to see today’s headlines about ‘a new church’. That doesn’t seem to be what they intended. But for that reason it is all the more strange to reflect on what the proposed ‘Primates’ Council’ is all about. What authority will it have, and how will that work? Who is to ‘police’ the boundaries of this new body – not least to declare which Anglicans are ‘upholding orthodox faith and practice’ (Article 11 of the ‘Jerusalem Declaration’), and who have denied it (Article 13)? Who will be able to decide (as in Article 12) which matters are ‘secondary’ and which are primary, and by what means? (What, for instance, about Eucharistic vestments and practices? What about women priests and bishops?) Who will elucidate the relationship between the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer, on the one hand, and the 14 Articles of GAFCON on the other, and by what means? It is precisely questions like these, within the larger Anglican world, which have proved so problematic in the last five years, and the ‘Declaration’ is actually a strange document which doesn’t help us address them. Many at GAFCON may think the answers will be obvious; in some clear-cut cases they may be. But there will be many other cases where they will not. It is precisely because I share the officially stated aims of GAFCON that I am extremely concerned about these proposals, and urge all those who likewise share that concern to concentrate their prayers and their work on addressing the issues in the way which, remarkably, GAFCON never mentioned, namely, the development of the Anglican Covenant and the fulfilment of the recommendations of the Windsor Report. I am delighted that many of the bishops who were at GAFCON are also coming to Lambeth, where their help in pursuing these goals will be invaluable.
In particular, though, there is something very odd about the proposal to form a ‘Council’ and then to ask such a body to ‘authenticate and recognise confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and congregations’ – and then, as an addition, ‘to encourage all Anglicans to promote the gospel and defend the faith’. Many Anglicans around the world intend to do that in any case, and will not understand why they need to be ‘recognised’ or ‘authenticated’ by a new, self-selected and non-representative body to which they were not invited and which will not itself, it seems be accountable to anyone else. Of course, within the larger global context, not least in North America, I can understand the perceived need for something like this. I know how warmly the proposals have already been welcomed by many in America whose situation has been truly dire. But I also know from my own situation the dangerous ambiguities that will result from the suggestion that there should be a new ‘territorial jurisdiction for provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion, in those areas where churches and leaders are denying the orthodox faith or are preventing its spread.’ Sadly, as I suspect many at GAFCON simply didn’t realise, that kind of language has been used, in my personal experience, to attempt to justify various kinds of high-handed activity. It offers a blank cheque to anyone who wants to defy a bishop for whatever reasons, even if the bishop in question is scrupulously orthodox, and then to claim the right to alternative jurisdictional oversight. This cannot be the way forward; nor do I think most of those at GAFCON intended such a thing. That, of course, is the risk when documents are drafted at speed.
In short, my hope and prayer is that the spiritual energy, the sense of celebration, the eagerness for living and preaching the gospel, which were so evident at GAFCON, can and will be brought to the forum where we badly need it, namely, the existing central councils of the Anglican Communion. I understand only too well the frustration that many have felt at these bodies. But if GAFCON is to join up with the great majority of faithful, joyful Anglicans around the world, rather than to invite them to leave their present allegiance and sign up to a movement which is as yet – to put it mildly – strange in form and uncertain in destination, it is not so much that GAFCON needs to invite others to sign up and join in. Bishops, clergy and congregations should think very carefully before taking such a step, which will have enormous and confusing consequences. Rather, GAFCON itself needs to bring its rich experience and gospel-driven exuberance to the larger party where the rest of us are working day and night for the same gospel, the same biblical wisdom, the same Lord.
Thanks, #47 Micky!!! I had just read this myself and totted off an email to the Elves asking if it could be posted. I think it deserves its own thread!!!
+Dunelm ROCKS!!!!!
Over at Ruth Gledhill’s blog, I was reading comments on ++Rowan’s statement. One commenter makes a powerful point oh so concisely:
[blockquote][i]”Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion.”[/i]
Except in the USA, whose General Convention refuses to vote for such a proposition – and the Church of England, whose Synod has been forbidden even to discuss it!
Posted by: David Cohen[/blockquote]
Indeed.
Hey all. Kendall just got back online I think. So I imagine the +NT Wright statement will be posted soon. And probably the +KJS statement too. So please keep these comments focused on ++Rowan’s remarks. Thanks.
Yes, of course, Rowan, we will, indeed “think very carefully.”
TEC commited to “exercising considerable caution” which was good enough for you and the ACC — so, yes, we will all “think very carefully” —
[i][b]and then do what we need to do just like TEC did and ignore you for the ineffectual piece of irrelevance you have made yourself to be[/b][/i]
And that, in case anybody missed it, is the real point of the brilliant way GAFCon handled this whole event.
This is what it looks like when history overtakes a hesitant leader. The ABC had a moment to act last September in New Orleans. He chose not to. The global communion has come of age, it no longer needs the ABC to serve as the focus of unity. He asks: “By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council? And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?” The obvious answer is conciliarism, and we just saw that in action in Jerusalem. The authentic heart of Anglicanism will increasingly move, as it always has, in the direction of greater conciliarism. It will defend orthodoxy and reject heresy through authoritative councils. That is what the Church catholic has always done, and that is what global Anglicanism will increasingly do. In this sense it will look more like the Eastern Orthodox churches than Rome.
Interesting that Mr. Williams takes months to respond to TEC’s innovations and even then uses very weak language (which his defenders insist is ‘british subtlety’).
Here, in a mere 24 hours time, Rowan shoots from the hip, and miraculously seems perfectly capable of speaking clearly. Apparently months of ‘prayerful discernment’ are not needed when responding to GAFCONites. Only TEC benefits from his dithering.
The statement itself is so full of self-serving nonsense that it’s hard to know where to begin. I’ll begin and end with the first and most obvious foolishness in the letter: “The uniqueness of Christ is not in dispute.â€
Dear Rowan, read an occaisional diocesan newspaper from TEC. Pick one. Better yet, google “Schori.†You won’t even have to leave your office.
Just in case anyone was beginning to forget why GAFCON was necessary, this statement from Williams serves as a poignant reminder.
This statement would read more like the fruit of real deliberation if it contained a more conventional presentation of biblical references, not to mention some punctuation at the end of the first paragraph. It may have passed through someone’s mind, but if it did pass through anyone’s word-processor, no-one looked at the green and red on the screen. A measure perhaps of the careless reflex thinking which lies behind it.
AMEN, Fr Gross!
I think Fr. Gross (#53) gets the meta-narrative just right. Just as a pipe give a wise man time to think and a fool something to put into his mouth, we’ve likely been been duped by his delays into believing ++Rowan was deep and reflective when it is just as probable the ABC was dithering to let the revisionists’ innovations congeal. Then he issues a turgid, impenetrable, 10,000-word chin-tugger that leaves everyone scratching his head, and the deal is sealed.
Now that we know our gracious Lord Canterbury is capable of quick, decipherable prose, might we demand something similar the next time TEC produces a fresh outrage against the Gospel?
I wonder what the conversations in the Vatican were like when Henry VIII was moving the C of E out on its own. Can’t you just imagine the conversations (in precise Latin, of course) among various Italian cardinals, as they asked themselves “By what authority will this new Council, or Synod, or whatever they call it determine whatever they intend to determine?” Or, perhaps “Overlapping jurisdictions have sometimes been fraught with difficulty.”
I am sure that the English, and even the ABC, thought very carefully about all of this.
wtg ++Rowan!
A sound critique. This matches the lack of actionable items that the GAFCON statement puts forth. In the end, we have more to read-nothing more. And ++Rowan knows this.
On a second reading, its actually quite a nice letter. There is no threat “if you do this then I will be forced to do that”. Instead, he just identifies some pitfalls to watch out for. What is missing is any sort of apology for his actions after Tanzania, or any real attempt to draw them back to the table. I do think the GAFCON folk will need to engage with the remaining part of the communion that they do recognise to ensure proper order.
I’ve been thinking. Perhaps if he really doesn’t see that a different Gospel is being preached, we can help him out. A barrage of newspaper clippings and copies of articles from the Internet sent to him at Lambeth palace would be indisputable evidence and let him know how many people are reading AND CARE!
#58, While I appreciate and respect your frequent willingness to be a differing opinion here I think you underestimate the possibilities created by the primates of Gafcon. Their move to create a proto-orthodox covenant and a council is a brilliant tactical stroke. By planting a flag and calling the orthodox to stand with them they create incredible internal pressures on the reappraising bishops and provinces. If the existing instruments of unity do not respond positively to a renewed call to orthodoxy, the Gafcon council can begin defining the borders of a faithful anglican communion. The reappraisers will be the ones ultimately forced to separate in order to maintain their power and identity.
venbede
Thanks. I must respectfully disagree, though. If we look at the situation as it has existed since 1997, we have seen a range of actions from silence to mild rebukes to strongly worded documents to para-church organizations (AAC, Common Cause, Global South, GAFCON) to incursions/rescues all the way to the ‘victory’ of Lambeth 1.10.
In May 2008, the Anglican Communion
-refused to discipline TEC
-refused to discipline ACoC
-claimed Lambeth 1.10 as its official teaching
-had the Instruments of Unity
-had ++Rowan, ++Fred and ++Katharine as well as ++Henry, ++Peter and ++Greg
In July 2008, the Anglican Communion
-refuses to discipline TEC
-refuses to discipline ACoC
-claims Lambeth 1.10 as its official teaching
-has the Instruments of Unity
-has ++Rowan, ++Fred and ++Katharine as well as ++Henry, ++Peter and ++Greg
Another group with another plan, no matter how well outlined and organized, is still another group with another plan. ++Orombi, ++Akinola and ++Venables already have enormous influence and the support of the vast majority of Anglicans.
This new group may have a structure, but if they break from ++Rowan, they are no longer Anglican-by definition. If ++Rowan effects a split, those who remain with him are indeed Anglican-again by definition. This is why schism is so hard to achieve-no one wants to leave the See of Canterbury. And TEC, ACoC and the CoE are the triumvirate backing Canterbury.
The ABC stumbles upon a point and spears himself with it: “[H]ow is a bishop or primate in another continent able to discriminate effectively between a genuine crisis of pastoral relationship and theological integrity, and a situation where there are underlying non-theological motivations at work?”
In fact, the apostasy of the Episcopal organization is not a matter of theology at all. It is the politics of popular culture. They didn’t manage to twist God’s Word 180 degrees by theological study and prayer. They did it to further a left-wing social political agenda. So, the Episcopal organization ran off the tracks because of non-theological motivations.
Does that mean the GAFCON bishops cannot minister to the remaining orthodox Anglican Christians in lands where their church has become a political action organization?
#63, Brian, I agree that the proof has to be in the pudding, but I think the difference here from past cases is that the Gafcon primates are no longer waiting for the communion to discipline the reappraisers. Gafcon has achieved separation without leaving. Gafcon doesn’t need to divorce itself from the ABC since it has been obvious since 2003 that he has no power to either discipline or establish doctrine for the communion. We’ll see how things play out, but as a result of the events last week in Jerusalem I believe we have entered into a new era .
Don’t you think the Archbishop’s questions, “By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council? And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?” would be devastating rejoinders if he had in fact asserted the authority to disinvite “primates” from his councils or had in fact shown that his authority reached into a jurisdiction outside his own archdiocese?
It will be interesting to see, given the lack of discipline that TEC has received, whether the ABC believes he has any power over the GAFCON group. I read this letter as suggesting that he actually doesn’t think he has. He has chosen to point out perils and pitfalls in their approach, but he hasn’t said anything approaching “stop this or else.”
In terms of the legitimacy issue, legitimacy is earned — it is not inherent. Kings in the past have learned that legitimacy to rule can be lost and elected government’s that lose the support of the people find the same today. If the leadership of GAFCON get followers, then they have legitimacy even if the ABC doesn’t likes it. If the leadership ends up with no followers, then even if the ABC declares it the shining star of legitimacy, it will have none.
In the meantime, I would not let the comments of an ineffectual leader who has lost his own legitimacy worry us that much.
PS I do agree that the speed and clarity of this response compared with the slowness of previous ones is telling. I don’t however agree that his statements have always been unclear.
I believe that the absurd ramblings of an ineffective leader and his followers speak for themselves.
Most of the comment here, and on other threads, blames the ABC because he “didn’t act”, “had a chance and didn’t take it”, etc. He did not do what you wanted him to do. But that is his prerogative. If you accept authority, you have to accept that the person in authority may not do what you want them to do, or may do what you don’t want them to do. This goes for God, as well, of course. If you don’t accept authority, you shouldn’t be in an episcopal church.
#70 badman
I agree, sometimes you just have to accept you didn’t get your way. But there are times to act against authority. You do that when you see that authority harming someone else.
My understanding of the gospel is that I am a sinner, and Jesus died for my sins. Because of His sacrifice I have been redeemed. That is not the gospel being preached in many parts of the Anglican Communion anymore. My understanding of the gospel being preached in other parts of the communion is that the bible is a nice book which tells us we should do nice things and help each other and those less fortunate than ourselves. My understanding is that anyone that follows that Gospel alone does not really know Jesus, and that they could end up in hell as a result. Yes, its that serious.
And I know that the person in authority is turning a blind eye to that and allowing false teachers to use the banner of my church to teach lies which could really hurt people. Should we just ignore that and accept that he knows best?
#70 There is a substantial difference between accepting authority and blind obedience. If we accept your rule, then the leders we will get are those for whom power is an infinite tool to be used to direct a slavish population. To put God in the same category as accepting human authority is, begging your pardon, an absurd classification, since the genus for classification are unrelated. Larry
What?! No assembly to study the GAFCON statement for a year and issue a Report to be addressed by Primates assembled with serial meetings requesting clarification from the alleged offenders? No Panel of Reference to assess complaints against alleged offenders? No ignoring serial athletic supporters of the new angst gozpell splashed all over the international headlines and internet?
The ABC can respond quickly, clearly, concisely?!
Was the person who issued this the ABC or a cleverly disguised alien?
My great hope is that GAFCON inspires Gospel mission and Gospel godliness for all those who rally to their statement. We already have enough bright acronym plans and groups who want to “save the AC”. GAFCON focuses on the Church’s call to save SOULS. If Rowan or Katherine want to fight for the old structures…let them fight. As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.