The answers the fellowship develops to the practical questions raised above in relation to the “how?” question are vital. They will also likely in large part depend on the actions of Lambeth and the Instruments. The ball is therefore now in the court of Lambeth and the Archbishop of Canterbury. They must consider how they will relate to GAFCON and whether they can offer a more constructive and truly conciliar way of addressing the questions we face. In particular these are the urgent questions concerning reform of the Instruments, the need for an Anglican Covenant, and the necessity (perhaps the fruit of the Windsor Continuation Group) for a clearer and more decisive Communion response to those bishops and churches who continue determinedly to reject the Communion’s repeated requests for restraint and repentance since the last Lambeth conference.
Instant reactions to GAFCON are, sadly, in our day and age necessary and inevitable. This is especially so when its proponents, warning against delay, call on people and congregations to take a stand and make what they describe as fundamental choices in the face of what they portray as a false gospel. There are, however, high levels of fear, anger and past hurts on all sides in the current climate and the power of the existing political alliances and prejudices surrounding GAFCON cannot be denied. These factors ”“ together with the complexity of the current situation – mean it is vitally important that GAFCON’s proposals and reactions to them do not get so fixed that they fuel further breaches in bonds of affection. All of us””from individuals and parishes being urged to sign up in support of GAFCON to the hundreds of Anglican bishops gathering later this month at Lambeth””need time for prayerful discernment as to what God is saying and doing in these tumultuous times and what part GAFCON plays in his reshaping of Anglicanism.
I welcome this thoughtful and irenic piece. It is totally different in tone and character from +Tom Wright’s vehement denunciation of GAFCON. The appeal at the end to the wise counsel of Gamaliel in Acts aptly captures the thrust of this brief essay: it is cautious and non-committal. Of course, such a patient, “let’s-wait-and-see” approach only works for people who aren’t in desperate, crisis situations, as many orthodox Christians are in North America. Try telling David Short+ in Vancouver to just “wait and see.” Or try telling that to Don Armstrong+ in Colorado Springs etc.
David Handy+
It is easy to agree about the risks of rushing to judgment and there are many critical ‘details’ to work out but the AC is taking way too long to decide and declare it’s primary purpose and mission.
Are we another new age cult that retains the trappings of the traditional church or do we believe in the uniqueness and centrality of Christ and his teachings? The article correctly identifies the “key questions” but seems to miss the urgency of addressing them. An orderly process should be followed but the AC has prevaricated far too long already!
[blockquote] In short, while there are dangers in a broad-brush analysis and areas which need nuancing or correcting, much of the diagnosis offered by GAFCON has widespread sympathy and support. The key questions therefore are
(1) how do those who share these concerns discuss where there is disagreement?
(2) how do we find a response together to the challenges of false teaching and to the task of renewing and reforming Instruments that are not fit for purpose?
Only by engaging together with these questions is there any hope of discerning and developing new ways of being a communion that can seek a common mind and then act on it.[/blockquote]
Agree entirely. Andrew Goddard’s analysis of GAFCON is very much a cut above NT Wright’s, intellectually and theologically, in both style and substance. (One merely wonders where, apart perhaps from Lambeth Palace, NTW thought his widely publicized intemperate outbursts had the potential to win friends and influence people.) Whether the advice to hold one’s nose for a further 30 seconds is sensible may well depend on what province and diocese one finds oneself in. New Westminster may not be the same as Rochester.