The first and irrefutable conclusion that must be drawn from these two documents is the shocking inadequacy of GAFCON’s theological resource group and wider leadership. To have produced a briefing paper claiming to summarise the changes between the Nassau and St Andrew’s draft covenants but actually comparing the St Andrew’s draft to a quite different document unrelated to the covenant (and which many of the GAFCON team were involved in writing) is an astonishing error. That nobody in the group (or among the GAFCON leadership which released it) realised that the claimed removals from the Nassau draft were therefore all fraudulent suggests an inexcusable level of ignorance about the covenant process on the part of all those involved in writing and then disseminating this briefing paper to the wider Communion. The authorship is unclear but either we have a very small number of people writing what claims to be a representative document commended by seven Primates or we have a large group which failed to spot this basic and serious flaw. I am not sure which of these options is I would prefer to be reality. Unfortunately this all gives the strong impression that the conclusion ”“ “the new document is severely flawed and should be repudiated” ”“ was already decided upon on other grounds.
The second conclusion is that the other response of the same team is therefore seriously discredited, especially if it was put together on the basis of the briefing paper or by people who had seen the briefing paper and not realised its basic error.
Read it carefully and read it all. It is very disappointing that there was a basic documentation mistake of this magnitude–KSH.
I think this shows that the leaders of GAFCON really do not want to remain in the AC and had already decided what their response would be. I am afraid that they will not listen to their evangelical sisters and brothers and will forge ahead with the “new” AC.
I remember 5 years ago such leaders claimed that 21 or so of the primates would act to kick TEC out of the AC. I guess that number has dropped to 7 (maybe 8). Since they “lost” they will now quit. I think that is not good for them or the AC.
Does anyone think they will admit to misrepresenting the Covenant?
This is, I think, partly the result of many of the GAFCON leaders deciding to not attend Lambeth. Perhaps if they were there, the documentation would have been complete or the omission caught earlier?
Jim Elliott <><
Perhaps our GAFCON leaders will revisit this issue, based on the observations of Dr. Goddard. He is our brother. “Just as iron sharpens iron, friends sharpen the minds of each other” (Proverbs 27:17, CEV). However, “It thereby reveals that, in relation to our common life together as Anglicans, it [the GAFCON movement] is suffering from the same spiritual sickness as the North American churches have revealed in relation to Communion teaching on sexuality.”
Really, Dr. Goddard?
Really?
William Shontz
It is clear that GAFCON needs to address the right document. But it is all so clear that from the perspective of GAFCON the ACI and Fulcrum is as hostile as are the reappraisers.
If there is a major error it should be corrected. However, I am unable to be very interested in a Covenant for a Communion which has already demonstrated it will not enforce its own official policies.
I certainly hope this will be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate the principles we hold so dear. The GAFCon primates who were responsible for the erroneous statement ought to admit their error and ask forgiveness, then proceed down the right road, issuing a corrected document. I hope we can model Christ’s call in all we do, including our errors!
Sorry, but I see “Divide and Conquer” at work.
Lord please smack me upside the head if I ever see a mistake like this and fail to go straight to the source and point it out to them before I broadcast a withering response far and wide. And Lord please keep me mindful of this so you don’t have to smack me upside the head anytime soon.
#1 Tough to say; but you raise a good point: can any of us, given the positions we all seem to cling to, be humble enough to allow God to shape our mistakes according to his will? Or will we, as we have been doing, continue to diverge from one another making no time and space for anyone to come to one another and confess and repent. It will indeed be interesting to see if the leaders of GAFCON can live out the faith they proclaim and that they demand of the ‘liberal’ camp.
#4 You speak for GAFCON? I am a little confused as to what you mean by your second sentence; could you please clarify and expand upon what you mean?
#5 From your posts concerning the Covenant thus far, I understand that you do not believe the Covenant can provide a fruitful way forward as it is currently written. I agree it needs some revision, but I think it provides a strong foundation and basis for going forward with our life together. Given that you feel so strongly, have you offerred your critique and suggestions to the Covenant Design Group? If you would like, I can provide you the name and address of the individual to whom you would submit such an analysis. This might be a more fruitful use of time than simply (or only) writing about it on a blog.
9, I speak for myself and Mr. Goddard’s article speaks for itself. The problem that I see with the Covenant not the content. The whole idea is a pipe dream as far as those in North America is concerned. It is irrelevant, it will not help, it will not slow TEC down, it will not impose discipline on
TEC and it is meaningless. Indeed, at this point, given the total inability of the AC as AC to, in any meaningful way, help us, the AC itself is meaningless.
Only GAFCON, in providing a meaningful safe harbor when the need is here, is meaningful. To the extent the Covenant and ACI and Fulcrum hinder that effort then they join TEC in our persecution.
Apparently the GAFCON leadership has made a statement that was not well formulated and now, those who wish GAFCON to NOT succeed, are having a field day picking it apart.
I don’t know how many readers of this blog have prepared statements/analyses/position papers/reports that will be read by some person or group of persons who are eager to find some mistake, some fault, that can be used to pick apart the author(s) or the group that they ‘belong to.’
Well, I have. And I understand the psychology of the opportunistic and unfriendly opposition. They are generally out to destroy the credibility of the authors and the mistakes that they ‘discover’ are secondary to them. That is, regardless of the ‘truth’ or ‘untruth’ of their attacking statements, they are out to DESTROY THE AUTHORS and the mistakes/errors/misstatements are secondary.
The concern of the authors, in this case, I believe, is that a covenant for the Anglican Communion is not going to solve the problems caused by the revisionists in the USA, Canada or anywhere else in the Communion.
There will be NO discipline forthcoming or any workable framework for discipline forthcoming in a final version of a covenant that is accepted throughout the Communion.
The revisionists will continue to act in defiantly blatant disregard for others in the pursuit of their agenda even if there is a covenant. Whatever the covenant says.
That is the REAL PROBLEM facing us and not some sort of unintended GAFCON gaffe.
#10 You have made your judgment clear. I will pray for you in choosing the path you feel your judgment has led you to follow; may it bring fruit according to God’s purposes.
#1 Ithink that you are wrong, I think that the 7 primates are right, it is time to leave Sodome.
#11 No one is having a field day picking anything apart; people are trying to offer critique and to question whether a response formulated by a particular group might also be indicative of that group’s current status of organization and leadership.
There is much to critique of the GAFCON response itself. But the fact that the response is based on faulty factual information (not just mistaken documents but also the GAFCON assumption that the Covenant is a document meant to address current issues) makes its assessment and conclusions rather questionable.
Anything put forth in a public forum is open to critique whether it is an academic paper or presentation, or a response to the Covenant Draft. And the one’s asserting a given perspective are held accountable in their research, their organization, their thinking and their reasoning for what is said, thus all of these things are open to critique.
You’re right. Nor was it intended to (see an earlier discussion thread on this “GAFCON Response to Anglican Covenant”). It is a future oriented document. It will require trust. This is the central challenge that most have articulated both in the ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative camps’ with respect to the Covenant not working.
You are correct, the issue of groups acting autonomously is at the center of this challenge and I believe is addressed in both the main text of the draft (autonomy within communion, and interdependence), and in the appendix (disciplinary measures). What is currently in the St. Andrew’s Draft needs some revision; however what is there provides a strong foundation from which to work.
So the constructive course of action is not simply to offer critique, but to make suggestions to the Covenant Design Group about why what is there will not work, AND how it might be ammended. Both of these tasks must be undertaken.
If TEC acts with autonomy and yet signs onto the Covenant, the Communion as a whole will have a mechanism by which to discipline them: one which all members who sign the agreement, will have agreed to live by.
If you have written a paper, response, critique before – why not write one for the Covenant and submit it? We need more conservatives to say, here’s what works and here’s what doesn’t and here are my justifications and suggestions for what I say. Everyone within the Communion has been given a chance to respond, why not take it. If, as has been called for by Lambeth, Virginia, Windsor and the ABC, this Covenant becomes definitive of our life together, why not seek to respond to it in droves even if we believe that in its current form, it is inadequate to the task of upholding our Christian faith. We have an opportunity to respond and to help shape it; so why not take it?
#13 Peace of the Lord be with you. You have my prayers on your pursuit of truth.
Probably part of the problem is that the millions of pounds it takes to keep conversation going in the Anglican Communion is not available to the infant GAFCON, which has no central office or structure and barely maintains a web site. But that cannot be totally correct or it would disallow the great investigative reporting of Jim Naughton. What bothers me about Goddard’s “gotcha” slam is that it simply does not keep conversation going for someone who supposedly wants the conversation to continue. Or does he?
“Or does he?”
Good question Francis.
You have to admit that Oliver Wormser’s little allegory is fetching! The author raises several good, objective points. But some of his conclusions are highly subjective and even cynical. Only time will tell if he’s right or not. GAFCON’s response appears below:
GAFCON response to the St Andrew’s Covenant: correction and apology
July 23rd, 2008 Posted in Global Anglican Future Conference, News |
The Global Anglican Future Conference Theological Resource Group (TRG) has published a response to the St Andrew’s Covenant. http://www.gafcon.org/index.php This has the authority of that group and is the substantive response from GAFCON.
There are two major concerns about the proposed covenant. First, what will it contain? Will it have sufficient commitment to the doctrinal and ethical commitments of the traditional Anglican formularies? Will it have sufficient material on the process of maintaining unity on essentials?
Secondly, the current St Andrew’s draft focuses the action away from the Primates to the Anglican Consultative Council. In every case except the Church of England, the Primates are the elected heads of their churches. The Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998 asked for enhanced responsibility to be given to the Primates on matters of contention. The St Andrew’s draft reverses this direction and gives responsibility to the ACC for approval of the final text of the covenant and as arbiter of inclusion in the Communion.
Thirdly, it should be noted that even though the Lambeth Conference is an instrument of communion, it has no decision-making role in finalizing the covenant. Rather it is the ACC that will be the final arbiter of what the covenant will contain.
Further, no bishop here has the authority to accept the covenant on behalf of anyone else: such decisions belong to the provinces, their synods and house of bishops.
The briefing paper that was posted on the GAFCON website, on which Dr Andrew Goddard focuses his major critique http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm, has now been removed. It was purely a resource paper provided for the TRG comparing the St Andrews Draft with earlier theological reflection. This reflection was incorrectly identified for which apologies are made for the confusion caused.
The response of the GAFCON Theological Resource Group is to the St Andrew’s Draft and the GAFCON Theological Resource group welcomes comments on the substance of their response to office@gafcon.org.
Excellent. I look forward to an opportunity to engage in dialog with them on their response (at least I hope it is more than one-way).