I remain convinced that to understand the heart of our struggles we need to recognise that there are two distinct but related issues. One is the issue of sexuality and attitudes to Anglican teaching, discernment and practice on this subject as found in Resolution I.10 of Lambeth 1998. The other ”“ in some ways the more complicated one, especially for evangelicals ”“ is the issue of ecclesiology and what it means to be a global communion of Anglican churches….
In relation to North America, GAFCON is clearly seeking to be the means of constituting a new Anglican province. While I am among those who believe this is a sign of failure, it is now the inevitable consequence of developments over recent years and the key task is to ensure it is at least as good a “second best” as possible rather than something worse. The aim must be not only to build the church and spread the gospel in the US and Canada. The aim must also be to establish a structure which, even if initially only recognised by a few provinces, is able and willing, once the Anglican covenant is agreed, to make the necessary affirmations and commitments and so align itself with the newly configured covenantal Communion. The danger is that this development may become ”“ whether intentionally or not – the trigger for a fracturing of the wider Communion and the founding of a more narrowly defined purely confessional fellowship which is shaped less by the ecclesiological vision of Windsor and more by the forces of post-colonialism and hostility to the American church’s response to same-sex unions.
And what, finally, of our own Church [of England]? That is, I take it, where much of our discussion will focus today and I don’t want to pre-empt that but a few comments as I close. We would be foolish to deny that the fault-lines in North America and the wider Communion are not present here or to pretend that realignment in these other contexts can take place without effecting us. In particular, if the failings of Lambeth place more weight on the Archbishop of Canterbury, they also place more pressure on the province of which he is Primate. However, it would be both foolish and dangerous to pretend that our own situation is anywhere near as dire as that of either the American or Canadian churches or to claim that we are called to follow their path. The challenge especially for evangelical Anglicans in the CofE is therefore to find a way of maintaining their own unity and rejecting further fragmentation, standing in solidarity with others here in England and across the Communion who are committed to biblical teaching, and supporting the covenant process and all other means of reforming, healing and revitalising the Anglican Communion and serving God’s mission in the world.
Ah well. Hope springs eternal. As Bruce Ismay observed, “This ship can’t sink!”
Mr Goddard has a lot of good things to say but he irritatingly plays games with numbers.
Mr Goddard starts out with the rather deceptive statement that “only two of ten the ten network dioceses” have realigned and then from that flimsy statement proceeds to take “It must not be forgotten that just as the realigners of Common Cause are a [b]minority of the orthodox[/b] within TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada…” as given. Well, 2 more dioceses presumably will leave and many realigners have left but not as a diocese. These certainly should include CANA, Ugandan, and Kenyan churches as well as the AMiA churches. He disparagingly refers to the realigners as the tail whereas the remainers are the dog. Which is bigger, the realigners or the 6 dioceses together with the islands of orthodoxy, e.g., in Sioux Falls SD. I don’t think it is obvious where things stand numerically and of course, when the new orthodox province comes into being, many of the stayers will most likely bolt. I think that most likely rather than a tail/main body of dog split, it is more a left/right split.
He then talks about the “border crossing” Global South 6 as being a “minority” in the entire GS. This ridiculously ignores the both the numerical as well as influential majority that this “minority” holds in the GS organization.
He then moves on to the Covenant. Mr Goddard then criticizes the GS criticism of the Covenant, stating that that criticism adds to the fissuring. No, a toothless Covenant, which simply says, “We will all try to get along”, is much more of a threat to unity. For such a weak Covenant guarantees at least three factions: The North Americans and their cronies, the Rodney King-ers (“why can’t we all get along”) like Rowan Williams and say Middle East, and the GS core who reject the false unity. (I actually think that this what Rowan Williams wants – for the American revisionists as well as the GS 6 just to go away.)
How sad that the those like Mr Goddard are so fixated on the Covenant. Even Ephraim+ has stated that the Covenant will not fix the current crisis but be a method for resolving future crises. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Mr Goddard only has the Covenant.
Only GAFCON is doing anything and coming to our aid. Goddard and Fulcrum have done absolutely nothing other than throw stones at the lifeboat. I really have a very hard time caring about what they think.