Now to the GAFCON Communiqué: Most of it I can wholeheartedly support though I hardly have space in this ENewsletter to discuss it at length. Briefly let me say that The Jerusalem Declaration (the fourteen points in the document) affirms much of what I understand as basic Christianity as Anglicans have received it. As for the call for a North American Province to align the various judicatories of the Episcopalian diaspora, it is a noble and necessary endeavor, though it does not address any particular need that we in South Carolina have. That is, I rejoice that these brothers and sisters who have long looked for validation as “continuing” Anglicans are now recognized by important Provinces on the world stage when Canterbury, for various reasons, has been unable to do so. This recognition I can support even while I am grateful that we here in the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina remain in full communion with Canterbury, that most historic and prominent See of Anglicanism. In fact this next week at the invitation of Archbishop, Rowan Williams, I travel to England””first to Exeter for what is termed the “Hospitality Week”. It is especially fitting to be assigned there. You may remember that the Diocese of Exeter at its Synod stood in solidarity with us when the first consent process for my election was ruled null and void. Along with this the Dean of Exeter was in Charleston this past January and February, serving as cantor at the evensong service the night before my consecration and as part of the procession at the joyous event the next day. From Exeter Allison and I will go to Canterbury for the Lambeth Conference from July 16th””August 3rd.
I am participating in both GAFCON and Lambeth because I believe it will take both the outside and the inside tack to move the Anglican Communion towards its God-given purpose and mission in the 21st Century. I think it is fair to say that without the likes of both George Whitefield and Joseph Butler pushing their wares in a prior century Anglicanism would not only be pastorally the weaker, but ecclesiologically the smaller. Or to use another historical allusion, without The Confession of Augsburg there would have been no Council of Trent. Institutions do not usually correct or readily adapt their structures or missions without a great deal of leverage, and GAFCON””regardless of whatever else it is””is clearly leverage.
Makes for an interesting contrast with Bishop Wright.
Bishop Lawrence has such a gracious way of speaking the truth.
This is a splendid letter. Very clear differentiation from TEC, while seeking to preserve ties with Canterbury, at least for now. I particularly welcome his lucid and unequivocal support for the outside strategy along with, and not in opposition to, the inside strategy. As +Mark Lawrence rightly notes, without the Lutheran Diet or Council of Augsburg, there would have been no Catholic Council of Trent.
Clearly, unlike the ACI and Fulcrum, +Lawrence sees a clear need to have a coordinated pincer movement, with both the outside and the inside strategy sides working together to apply sufficient pressure to bring about the radical change necessary to save Anglicanism. I agree. Though eventually, that will likely lead the revisionists in TEC and the western world to drive out the orthodox camp on the inside.
If this is what the CPP really stands for, then I’ll happily endorse those who want to pursue that inside strategy as long as they can. “Night comes, when no one can work.”
David Handy+
Re. his support of GAFCON and the “outside” strategy:
I swear I heard KJS shouting: “I told you so! I told you so!”
w.w.
I agree this letter is very impressive indeed as shrewd and realistic engagement of recent events, far more so than anything I’ve heard from NT Wright, Fulcrum, the ABC, GAFCON hardliners, Anglican Mainstream, ACI or what have you. May his tribe increase. No, better still: may he emerge as one heard and heeded.
I think it’s a good letter too, yet the assertion that a new North American province “does not address any particular need that we in South Carolina have” has yet to elicit the same fury that it provokes when some other people attempt to use it. If Pittsburgh cannot any longer be in relationship with “false doctrine and heresy,” then why can South Carolina continue to be so?
More to the point, do many of those responsible for GAFCON see themselves merely as “leverage.” If they did, would not all the bishops involved be attending the Lambeth Conference? What is not addressed is what the post-Lambeth (and post-November) relationship will be with San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh AND The Episcopal Church. Will South Carolina ultimately be able to be all things to all men? I still hope that they will and if they can’t do it then nobody can.
I wonder if +Mark sees the mission of his diocese as analogous to the work of John Wesley (who never abandoned his Anglican roots) as opposed to GAFCON’s embrace of the approach ultimately promoted by Francis Asbury.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Those of us who have yet to leave ECUSA ae watching South Carolina closely. I minister in a non-hostile area and have been waiting to make decisions about my move until I see how this all plays out. If I were ministering in a hostile environment then I certainly would be in a different place. I, like +Mark, am excited about GAFCON. I have yet to determine if it is the direction for me and I still must discern if a relationship to Canterbury is important for me. If, I discern that it is not, I may end up somewhere all together different. I am seeking a place to do ministry that can support my ministry, provide oversight, and be sold out to the spreading of the gospel. Those of us who are steppping back and watching can often “see” better than those entrenched in the middle of any camp.
I think, and its my opinion, that there are many more folk questioning the “relationship” to Canterbury than anyone knows. Lots of this is because the “historical thing”s, the church fathers, etc etc have NOT been taught as part of church studies for laity. I too am not sure that its a necessity.
Moreover, and perhaps more important, is the “relationship’ to TEC.
In physically “leaving” the motive is usually clear, TEC is not behaving according to scripture, and indeed teaches (in more than a few places) a “different Gospel”.
I truly don’t understand how one can believe, when they know what the organization is telling untruths to the unbeliever and the world, teaching the children scriptural lies, that those who stay, can somehow still consider themselves different.
Individually I suppose that’s possible, but the day is fast coming when as churches/dioceses, that kind of behavior, or teaching against TEC will not be tolerated.
Then what?
Gloria in SC
Ps: Hi saj
Gloria, I believe that that time will come sooner than you think. TEC’s General Convention in 2009, to be specific.
I understand, but any “canon” (including Title IV’s) will still NOT be in effect til 2012 if passed again then.
The problem I see is, 815 has little regard for canons, or even the consitututional things. They’ll press ahead, and darn the torpedos.
Grannie G
While I appreciate Bishop Lawrence’s letter, there are obviously those Anglicans within the geographic boundaries of the Diocese of South Carolina who have seen the formation of a province separate from TEC as necessary–hence the fact that they are not part of the good Bishop’s flock, despite his orthodoxy. That is perhaps the greater divide among us–those orthodox who believe they can have no affiliation (even one that amounts to a sort of branding) with TEC and those that believe they can. People can readily tell the difference between revisionists and orthodox. It’s much harder to understand the rift between those orthodox who choose to stay in dioceses with orthodox Bishops and those that choose to depart because they no longer want any part of TEC at all–and these are the divisions that are really the deepest because they cause the most pain. It is much worse to be separated from those with whom you agree on 99% of their interpretation of scripture than it is to be separated from those who seem to be reading another Bible altogether. I’m also not sure of whether the analogy here with Augsburg and Trent is really all that positive as they hardly resulted in a unified Church, though both stood for the truth as they understood it.
But, to echo an earlier comment… may his tribe increase.