Nearly 800 clergy and lay leaders from the Church of England took the first steps yesterday towards forming a “Church within a Church” to be an evangelical stronghold against the ordination of [noncelibate] gay people.
The clergy met at All Souls Langham Place, in Central London, a prominent evangelical church, where they were invited to sign up to the “Jerusalem declaration” rejecting liberal doctrines. Most are expected to endorse the statement, forming the British arm of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, a rival Anglican Communion that was started in Israel last week at a conference of conservative Anglicans from around the world.
In the declaration conservative bishops, mainly from Africa and Asia, stated: “We reject the authority of those Churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.”
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, hit back at the evangelical rebels yesterday, warning them that their new structures lacked legitimacy and urging them to “think very carefully about the risks entailed”.
“The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, hit back at the evangelical rebels yesterday, warning them that their new structures lacked legitimacy and urging them to “think very carefully about the risks entailedâ€.” Hhhhmmmm…let me think…risks entailed, risks entailed…OH! You mean like the risks entailed by surreptitiously holding a Eucharist for gay clergy?
This article by Ruth Gledhill portrays the “Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans” as “a rival Anglican Communion.” In the process, she deliberately chooses to interpret the significance of the Jerusalem gathering last week in a way contrary to the way the leaders of that event presented it. For instance, Ruth chose to use the upper case initial letters for the “fellowship of confessing Anglicans,” despite the careful avoidance of the same in the GAFCON Communique, as Dr. Stephen Noll pointedly stressed in Jerusalem.
That is her prerogative as a reporter. Many in the mainstream mass media were clearly hoping for a dramatic schism that would make for a gripping story. But GAFCON’s leaders failed to do what they anticipated and hoped for. Yet Ruth Gledhill still keeps trying to portray this as a schism in all but name, unofficial but real nonetheless. And she is not alone by any means in doing so. Many observers, both inside and outside the AC, are evaluating it in the same fashion.
But they are counting the chickens before they’ve hatched, so to speak. An outright, formal schism as the outcome of the movement that gained a big boost and picked up momentum in Jerusalem is not a foregone conclusion. Much depends on how other leaders in the AC respond to tis open and powerful challenge to the current “colonial” structures of the worldwide Anglican fellowship of national or regional churches.
But the potential for this to turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy is certainly there. It’s the liberals who seem to WANT a schsim, as long as they are perceived as the true Anglicans. And the leaders of GAFCON are smart enough not to allow that. It’s the heretical advocates of a false relativist gospel that are the true schismatics, and they will eventually be publicly unveiled as such, and thereby disgraced. After all, the MAJORITY of the world’s practicing Anglicans are already part of this fledgling movement and it is only starting to pick up steam and speed.
This article is shallow and misleading. Nor does it contain anything new.
David Handy+
The AoC is beginning to discover what it means to be irrelevant. He could well find himself without 1300 Anglo-Catholics and perhaps 800 Evangelicals at this rate the CoE could be shrinking faster than the TEc.
The news people are spinning it as they want to in the hopes of influencing (negatively) how this goes.
The people who went to Jerusalem have formed a voluntary association, like dozens of others in the Anglican world. The problem the Archbishop and liberals have is that this particular association may change their world. “Gay” associations have tried to do this, but since that’s something the Archbishop agrees with, he doesn’t mind.
Good point, #3. Read the first Psalm in this regard. Instructive!
If there is to be a split, it should be between the Catholics and the Evangelicals – time to say goodbye and wish each other Godspeed.
Rob, I disagree, a healthy church and Christian is all three – catholic, charismatic and evangelical. What needs to happen is an exchange and merger, a sharing of gifts of all three wings of Anglicanism.
To segregate would be a tragic mistake.
rob k (#6) and GA/FL (#7),
I basically agree with GA/FL, though with a significant qualification. That is, as a passionate advocate of what I like to call “3-D Christianity,” which is a synthesis of the evangelical, catholic, and charismatic DIMENSIONS of the Christian faith and life, I firmly believe that the three dimensions are compatible, in their biblical essence, though not always in their historic institutional expressions.
That is, just to take the first two for the moment, I contend that the evangelical and catholic dimensions operate on fundamentally different religious planes and are oriented around and driven by different central concerns, which are biblically based, theologically sound, and pastorally essential. And being on contrasting planes, they intersect, but they don’t directly clash in a head on collision in the form of A vs. anti-A.
Now, yes, rob k, there are of course ways in which some FORMS of evangelicalism (such as the hardcore ultra-Protestant evangelicalism of Sydney) does directly clash with some FORMS of catholicism within Anglicanism (such as much of the SSC). I do expect that the increasing emphasis on reconstituting Anglicanism on a confessional basis that GAFCON represents (and of which I am strongly in favor), will lead to a parting of the ways between the most extreme representatives of both wings.
But contrary to your #6, rob k, the real divide is where people stand on the dominant culture war issues. And here both the evangelicals and the catholic-minded Anglicans can make common cause against the whole liberal wing. To put it another way, look again at what GA/FL said in his #7, and pay attention to the significance of that third group, the charismatics. It is very, very significant that GA/FL lists them as the ballast here, and not the famous “broad church” party.
I can’t speak for anyone but myself. But when I speak of “3-D” Anglicanism I am deliberately and very intentionally EXCLUDING the whole broad church party. Instead of the old three-way categorization of Anglicanism as compising the “high and crazy, the low and lazy, and the broad and hazy,” I am very determinedly substituting the charismatics for the broad church folks.
And that, rob k, is the real division here.
David Handy+
When I try to explain the Episcopal/Anglican “Church” to people whose information comes primarily from the media, I graph it on two axes: the belief axis and the practrice axis. The belief axis runs left to right (liberal/revisionist – conservative/reasserter); the practice axis runs top to bottom: catholic/high church – evangelical/ low church. The upper left quadrant contains those who have “form” without content; the upper right has “form” and content; lower left is essentially empty; lower right is content without “form”. Those claiming to be “charismatics” can be found in all quadrants; note that the “charismatics” in upper left have the “form” of a charismatic, but not the content; the ones in lower left have neither “form” nor content. I use “form” to mean “looks catholic” or “looks charismatic”.
This works for me.
To RobK, Ga/FL and NRA,
Have you ever seen Richard Foster’s book [url=http://www.renovare.org/merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=SR02SOLW&Category_Code=GC&Store_Code=ROS]Streams of Living Water[/url]? It calls for a re-merging of different ‘streams’ of Christian expression into one whole. It’s part of his [url=http://www.renovare.org/index.asp]RENOVARÉ[/url] program.
Peace
Jim Elliott <>< (also a Catholic/Charismatic/Evangelical plus contemplative Christian)
libraryjim (#10),
Yes, I’m familiar with Foster’s outstanding book, Streams of Living Water. I am fond of both Richard Foster and his friend Dallas Willard, and I heartily favor the Renovare program that they lead. But for those readers who haven’t read it, Foster talks about SIX streams (five in the first edition, but six in the second, expanded edition) or traditions that are part of the richness of the full inheritance that we have as Christians.
Bottom line: There are a variety of reasonable ways you can slice up the pie into pieces. What matters in the end isn’t the number of pieces you choose to cut it into, but having or eating the whole pie.
I happen to favor a THREE dimensional approach for several reasons. First, because I like connecting the three dimensions to the three persons of the Trinity (generally, I see catholic type Christianity as stressing the goodness of creation and thus the role of God the Father, the evangel tradition as stressing redemption and the centrality of God the Son, while the charismatic tradition of course puts more stress on the work and gifts of the Holy Spirit than the other two).
And second, I like to connect the 3 D’s with three basic elements in our human make-up, i.e., evangelicalism with its stress on sermons, and Bible reading etc. tends to focus especially on the mind, and catholic style Christianity tends to focus on the will and the necessity of obedience and not just faith alone, while the charismatic strand of Christianity relishes giving full expression to the heart, including the emotional aspect of our being.
In other words, I find symboli significance in the threeness of “3-D” religion. That is NOT to deny the value of other ways of looking at the diverse traditions within the Christian Church. And that certainly would include Foster’s helpful and popular six-fold model, that includes such things as “the contemplative (or monastic) stream.” of centering/contemplative prayer, and the “social justice” stream. But I’ll just note that, as an evangelical Quaker or non-sacramentalist, Richard Foster’s grasp of the “incarnational” or sacramental stream is weak and does NOT capture the fullness of the catholic dimension, which includes things like creeds, liturgy, and a church hierarchy that Foster shies away from.
Let me add that Foster’s book on the six streams has an accompanying workbook that is fantastic as a study and discussion guide for small groups. I highly recommend it.
Still, I’m glad you brought up the Renovare movement, libraryjim. It’s having a profound and beneficial impact on many centrist evangelical or “mainline” congregations. We need to be proclaiming, as Paul did, “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). Put another way, we need to be preaching and living “the FULL gospel.”
It takes the WHOLE church proclaiming the WHOLE gospel to reach the WHOLE world. And we Anglicans, at our best, are uniquely positioned and able to do that.
David Handy+
Oops. Let me correct a couple of glaring typo’s above.
Of course, in the 3rd paragraph, I meant to say that it’s the “evangelical” tradition that particularly emphasizes redemption and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
And in the 5th paragraph, I naturally meant that I find the threeness of 3-D religion of great “symbolic” value. And that’s a key reason why I always use the image of three DIMENSIONS, instead of three streams. Because of the intrinsic connection between the spatial dimensions of heighth, width, and depth and the number three (and hence the Trinity etc.). Whereas you can have any number of streams that flow as tributaries into a river.
David Handy+
Fr. David,
Nice contrasts. I have no argument with anything you say, and especially liked:
[i]It takes the WHOLE church proclaiming the WHOLE gospel to reach the WHOLE world. And we Anglicans, at our best, are uniquely positioned and able to do that.[/i]
Still, I wish programs like ‘Alpha’ would bring up the sacramental/Catholic dimension of Christianity. I found the program singularly lacking in that regard, with its focus on the Evangelical dimension. I think I would have benefited more from a program like Renovare than Alpha.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
I have read all the posts subsequent to mine and appreciate the thoughtful comments. I have losts of aditional thoughts, some of which require more nuancing than I am ready to express tonight. I may try to respond more, without, hopefully, getting myself all tangled up. I will remark right now, though, that I agree with NRA that there is also a deep cultural divide that cuts acrosss “party” lines, but I still think that the ecclesiological divide is deeper. More later, I think! Thx.