GAFCON 13
14 July 08
1.
http://acl.asn.au/gafcon-final-press-conference-video-online/ttp://acl.asn.au/gafcon-final-press-conference-video-online/
GAFCON final press conference video online
Posted on July 4, 2008
Filed under News
Anglican TV’s Kevin Kallsen has now posted online the full video of the last GAFCON press conference.
Not only are the answers helpful, but the video gives an insight into how journalists seek to report on something like GAFCON. Russell Powell is heard as he facilitates the briefing.
In the light of near-hysteria about GAFCON in some circles, this is well worth watching. It runs for 36 minutes and can be seen here.
(Incidentally, Kevin Kallsen, who has provided this very helpful resource, is looking for financial support so he can report from Lambeth.)
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
2.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/14253/
GREG GRIFFITH
Video: Bishop Iker’s Remarks at GAFCON Press Conference
Monday, July 14, 2008 • 11:36 am
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
3.
http://www.dioceseofsc.org/mt/archives/000357.html
Bishop Lawrence Reflects on GAFCON
Thursday, July 3, 2008 • 6:03 pm
Let me offer here some preliminary Post-GAFCON—Pre-Lambeth thoughts. Living as we do in this cyberspace world of computer-quick and trigger-happy comments, many of us are conditioned to expect an immediate assessment of things from our leaders whether they are prepared to make them or not. Nevertheless, many in the diocese have been asking me about my experience while in Jerusalem. Frankly I’m still assessing my four days at GAFCON—a stay shorter than planned because of a cancelled departure flight. Consequently, I entered the gathering in medias res and because of prior commitments departed before the conference concluded. It was long enough however to get a feel for the vibrant and diverse life of the Anglican Communion as represented by several of its theological conserving and missionally-minded Provinces and churches. It was also of sufficient length to witness the savoring mouths of those who have hungered for some real bread in the midst of the famine abroad in many corners of Anglicanism these days, (Amos 8:11-12). Many participants seemed to be profoundly grateful for the teaching, fellowship and worship they experienced at this gathering of 1200+ Anglicans. Yet I need to note that it didn’t seem to be substantially different than what I experience week by week as I travel around the Diocese of South Carolina. What seemed like the sweetest of liquors to those around me at the conference was but the same living water I drink on a regular basis at diocesan events, and in parishes from the Pee Dee to the Low Country. I mention this to acknowledge that what we experience so broadly and almost omnipresently here in South Carolina is for many of our fellow Episcopalian and Anglican brothers and sisters a most rare and precious slaking for their dry souls.
We need to take inventory of the fact that unlike others we are anything but spiritually desperate. Nevertheless we do face theological and ecclesiological challenges in The Episcopal Church and within the Anglican Communion that we need to look at squarely and honestly. And these are too great for us to face alone. I believe GAFCON solidifies many, but by no means all, of the spiritual allies with which we shall be working as we strive to help shape Anglicanism in this age of globalization. It challenges us to work more closely with the network of “anglicans” around us in this region of South Carolina. At GAFCON I had conversations with those from AMiA, Diocese of the Holy Cross (I hadn’t heard of them either but they have several parishes in the upstate), and The Reformed Episcopal Church—each of which have congregations here in South Carolina—as well as with Anglicans from Uganda, Nigeria, Malaysia, Canada, Ireland, Australia, Chile, and Brazil. We need to recognize that we share a common theological and spiritual heritage and that our Lord prayed that we might be one as he and the Father are one. Sadly, sometimes it is easier to love the Anglican brother or sister 3000 miles across the ocean whom we cannot see and do not know than the Anglican brother or sister up the road that we can see but now serves the Lord in a different jurisdiction or from a different calling. We have some real work to do here!
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 Jea, 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.
It's not just about gays: Africans provide succour to a church in chaos
Peter Jensen
July 4, 2008
Peter Jensen is the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney.
Other related coverage
- Gay clergy has split Anglican Church: Jensen
- Jensen defends keepers of the Bible
- Anglicans' new group denounces liberalism
- Gay bishop joins partner in civil union
- Gay Anglican bishop marries his partner
- Outrage over Britain's first gay wedding in a church
- Anglicans feel the brunt of Mugabe's many hatreds
- Unneeded schism among Anglicans
|
|
There is a saying in financial circles that when Wall Street sneezes, Australia catches a cold. Such is the global dominance of North America that whatever happens within its shores, reaches ours eventually. This is true as much of cultural and ideological matters as it is of finance. What is more, much of this influence is imperceptible until you look back and see how far the ground has shifted.
I can understand why many people read about the outcome of the Global Anglican Future Conference and thought, "Crisis? What crisis?" I made the point to reporters in Jerusalem that we in Australia have been remarkably conservative on the matters which have deeply torn the fabric of the church globally.
At the same time, we should not be naive about the slow and steady influence of revisionist teaching and why the seven men who lead some of the largest Anglican churches in the world have decided to stand up and be counted.
Some will claim it is about homosexuality. It is true that is one of the presenting issues. Even those with no interest in the church see it as more than a little strange that an Anglican bishop, once married with teenage children, should declare he wants to be "a June bride". But that is only a symptom of the problem. It is wider and deeper than that.
At the moment, the problems are centred on North America. The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church in the US, is not large by American standards. What is more, its churches are closing for lack of numbers. Some would say the revisionist teaching espoused by its leaders has only hastened that decline.
Some Episcopal churches that have remained faithful to the historic Christian message have chosen to seek the oversight of Christian leaders in other parts of the Anglican world. Thus we have the spectacle of African provinces ordaining clergy for ministry in the US.
One American bishop I met in Jerusalem is working as a missionary bishop in the US, under the church of Kenya. Add to this the fact that the largest Anglican church in Canada is run by an Australian whose congregation has just voted to align with a province in South America. For this, his former bishop has now stripped him of his licence and warned he will be trespassing if he comes back to the church.
All this while the number of Anglicans in Canada has run so low that it is estimated there will be none left by 2050. This can fairly be described as chaos.
So far, the help and order needed in this matter is coming from the southern hemisphere. Ironically, the churches established by colonial Anglican missionaries have provided clarity and leadership. They understand that our present structures are unable to cope and that taking rose-coloured glasses to have tea with the Archbishop of Canterbury will not help either.
Those who have stepped forward are leaders of our denomination, with huge responsibilities in their churches. They don't need to do it, but they are prepared to do it for Western Christians who have lost the plot.
Some in Australia will say, what has this to do with me? That has never been the way of the Anglican communion. We rejoice with those who rejoice, mourn with those who mourn and seek to restore those who have strayed. Our "broad" church should never encompass those who deny basic Christian teaching.
I don't expect Australian churchgoers to notice changes here because of the conference in Jerusalem. These events are being played out on the world stage. But we too have our part to play in this Anglican renewal and the first step is to recognise the crisis, and that the conference is part of the solution. The past two weeks in Jerusalem have been among the most spiritually invigorating of my life. I have seen great generosity of spirit.
Americans have been willing to genuinely reach out to their African, Asian and South American brothers and sisters and say "help". No hint of paternalistic or racist attitudes. The "Church of England" has come full circle.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
5.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8610
Two English Bishops who were at GAFCON commend the gathering and its declaration
Posted by David Virtue on 2008/7/12 7:30:00 (400 reads)
Two English Bishops who were at GAFCON commend the gathering and
its declaration
on www.anglican-mainstream.net
From the Church of England Newspaper
July 11 2008
By Bishops Paul Butler (Southampton) and Keith Sinclair (Birkenhead)
'Find out what is pleasing to the Lord' (Ephesians 5:10) 'You hate my
instruction and cast my words behind you' (Psalm 50:17)
These two verses were in our minds over the last remarkable week of the GAFCON
Conference in Jer usalem, attended by over 1,200 people, including nearly 300
Bishops from all over the world, chiefly from the provinces of Nigeria, Uganda,
Rwanda, Kenya and Tanzania.
Part of the joy of the conference was its make up of laity and clergy, women
and men, from all the continents of our world. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop
of Rochester, addressing the conference, referred to the 'miracle of Gafcon',
describing it as part of God's purposes for our church. It was extraordinary
that so many people, from so many dif ferent parts of the world, had come
together within the space of eight months' preparation time.
There were Bishops from Nigeria, who had been recently consecrated and sent out
into Muslim areas to plant new churches. There was the Province which
represented the Western Nile that had seen 120 churches planted in the last 20
years, following the translation of the Bible into the Kukuwa language, a
church which was made up of 70 per cent youth, whose cathedral had 1,200
children in the Sunday school, between the ages of seven and 14, where 60 per
cent were below the age of 35, described by their Bishop as 'praying hard,
singing loud and dancing a lot'.
However, there was plenty of self- examination and criticism within the
churches represented at Gafcon. All the way through the conference there was
the question as to the relationship between the Gospel and Anglicanism, with
the insistence that Anglicanism has been shaped by the Gospel, and that this
must remain the case. In addition to the national and ethnic diversity,
different traditions within the worldwide church were very evidently present
from evangelical to catholic to charismatic. A theme throughout the week was
given by superb expositions from Scripture, bringing us the 'one stor y' of the
Bible from Genesis to Revelation, one of the most power ful expositions being
the last from Revelation 21, given by Archbishop Yong Ping Cheung, former
Archbishop of the Province of South East Asia, who spoke of the 'clear
intention to erode and change the fundamentals of the Gospel' being the
challenge facing the Anglican Communion at this time.
But Gafcon was not about narrow introspection. There were major sessions on
'The Gospel and Secularism', led by Os Guinness; 'The Gospel and Religion', led
by Professor Lamin Sanneh, Professor of World Christianity at Yale University;
sessions on tackling HIV and AIDS, learning from projects in Uganda and
Nigeria, promoting micro-economic finance and transformational business
networks. We heard from Palestinian Christians and Messianic Jews as to how
they were seeking to resolve their conflicts in the Holy Land.
One of the most powerful presentations came from Lamin Sanneh, as he spoke
about the Gospel and religion in the world at this time, with specific
reference to Gafcon. He identified three steps in any pilgrimage: 1)
preparation and separation, breaking the habits of routine, shaking up
awareness of who we are, 2) transition we are going somewhere, we have left
somewhere and in between we need to pray and to concentrate on transformation,
3) incorporation, when we are brought into a new family, a new situation, a new
fellowship, a new sense of community, we won't be the same as we were before.
He identified Gafcon as part of a bigger picture, an awakening of the Christian
church in the post Western world. He shared with us his thoughts on how it was
that Christianity had been marginalised in the land of its bir th. It had no
territorial call on any place, just as it had no elite.
The essence of its growth throughout the world was the translatability of the
Gospel. Christianity does not invent its own language, it adapts language and
the principle of translatability means that at the heart of the Gospel is the
rejection of any idea of superior culture or any culture that is so unclean
that it cannot be the recipient of the Gospel and be transformed. Exclusivity
to any culture is denied. All cultures are relativised, and he shared some
wonder ful stories about the growth of the church once the Bible has been
translated into the language of the people, and he thought that Gafcon belonged
to the sweep of Christian history and part of the wave of the future. When
asked what should the rest of the Anglican Communion's response be to the
Gafcon movement, he thought the answer was obvious. The communion should not
respond to Gafcon as a movement or as a rival or as a threat, but as an asset,
an asset to be grasped, to be worked with, to follow the impact of the Gospel
that is animating it.
There were also workshops on 'The Gospel and Culture', 'Anglican Identity',
theological training, the family and marriage and evangelism and church
planting, but at the hear t was the question: 'What is it to be an Anglican in
the world today?'
Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali was asked to address the question of the Anglican
Communion and the future, and he, addressing our cur rent conflicts and how our
fellowship should be maintained and not impaired, set out what he thought was
needed for our Communion at this time. (1) that we needed to be clear that we
were a confessing church, ar ticulating the Gospel in terms of our own
tradition, (2) to be clear that we are a conciliar church, that there are
councils at every level of the church that are authoritative to make decisions
that stick and (3) to be clear that we are a consistorial church, which means
that we are a church in which councils needed to exercise a teaching of fice,
so that our faith could be ar ticulated clearly. Bishop Michael was
particularly concerned for us to recover our Christian values in the West, so
that the Gospel was not lost. No one was underestimating the difficulties that
we face and the whole Conference was shaped by worship and prayer, both in the
Conference itself and out on the sites of the pilgrimage, including the Mount
of Olives and the steps leading to the Temple.
Towards the end of the Conference, its purpose and hope were summarised in the
statement and the Jerusalem Declaration. There was laughter and joy and there
was anguish and tears. One of the Bible expositions concluded with the call for
us to be humble, obedient, evangelistic and hopeful. We have come back wanting
to commend the statement and declaration for ever yone's prayer and testing,
not as a full and final declaration but clearly expressive of the needs,
longings and possible directions for the whole communion. We should all pray
and test, trying to find out what the will of the Lord is, loving his instr
uction and never casting his words behind us.
END
READERS' COMMENTS
|
FlatThreadedNested Oldest FirstNewest First |
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
|
Poster |
Thread |
|
Posted: 2008/7/13 10:19 Updated: 2008/7/13 10:19 |
|
|
Home away from home |
|
|
Re: Two English Bishops who were at GAFCON commend the ga... Its very encouraging to learn that Gafcon was not merely a bunch of people formulating a declaration, but that a lot of prayer, teaching and discussion went on there.
Also good to hear from two more faithful English bishops, as well as +Nazir-Ali. |
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
6.
Jul 10, 2008 10:38 | Updated Jul 14, 2008 9:58
Keeping the communion holy
By LELA GILBERT
Next week marks the beginning of the Lambeth Conference, an international gathering of Anglican bishops held in Britain every 10 years. It is hosted by the archbishop of Canterbury, currently Rowan Williams, head of the worldwide Anglican Communion. This year, however, the Lambeth Conference was pre-empted by a historic and controversial gathering in Jerusalem. The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), held at Jerusalem's Ramada Renaissance Hotel from June 22-29, brought together 1,148 orthodox Anglican lay and clergy participants, including 291 bishops representing millions of conservative Anglican Christians, many of them African.
In his opening remarks at GAFCON, the outspoken archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, described the necessity for such a gathering. "We have found ourselves in a world in which Anglican leaders hold onto a form of religion but consistently deny its power. We have a situation in which some members of the Anglican family think they are so superior to all others that they are above the law, they can do whatever they please with impunity.
"As a communion we have been unable to exercise discipline. In the face of global suspicion of the links of Islam with terrorism, Lambeth Palace [official residence of archbishop of Canterbury] is making misleading statements about the Islamic law, Shari'a, to the point that even secular leaders are now calling us to order! We can no longer trust where some of our communion leaders are taking us."
A long simmering dispute between the worldwide Anglican Communion and conservative Anglican leaders boiled over in 2003 when the American Episcopal Church ordained openly gay, non-celibate Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson as the ninth bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire.
Still, several of GAFCON's speakers were quick to point out that debates about homosexuality within the church are only symptoms of a greater malaise, which they identify with the rejection of Orthodox Christian beliefs regarding Holy Scripture and the divinity and redemptive work of Jesus.
Although a largely British leadership committee organized GAFCON, and although African bishops were the primary focus of media attention, a number of American bishops were also in attendance.
Many of these church leaders, along with hundreds of American churches, have left the American Episcopal Church and have instead placed themselves under the authority of conservative, biblically oriented African archbishops. One such leader is Bishop David Anderson.
Bishop David Anderson
Photo: Courtesy
In 2006, Anderson left the American Episcopal Church and had his holy orders transferred to Nigeria. In 2007 the house of bishops of Nigeria elected him, along with three others, to be suffragan bishops for the Convocation of Anglicans of North America, a missionary outreach of the Anglican Province of Nigeria to the United States.
Anderson still holds this position today. He is also president and CEO of the American Anglican Council, a non-profit advocacy group created in 1996 in response to what he describes as "the continued drift of the Episcopal church into biblical revisionism."
In Jerusalem asked Anderson about the dramatic changes taking place in the worldwide Anglican Communion and his views about some of the controversies surrounding GAFCON's gathering in Jerusalem.
How many North American churches have left the Episcopal Church?
That is a difficult number to arrive at because the Episcopal Church (TEC) only counts churches that have lost their property or have lost court cases and have no recourse. If a case is pending in court, the Episcopal Church will not acknowledge that the congregation is gone. If the congregation walks away from its property but four or five people remain behind, TEC will maintain that they still have a congregation there, even though it may be four walls and a janitor. So they won't admit to the hundreds of churches that have departed.
When you add it up, between 200 and 300 churches have left, including some of the largest congregations in the Episcopal Church. Some individual churches, like Falls Church, Virginia, have a membership exceeding that of many entire Episcopal dioceses.
What is the relationship between the American Anglican Council (AAC) and GAFCON?
AAC is very interested in the outcome of GAFCON. We have a deep desire to bring together all the churches that claim Anglican heritage in order to form a new province - one that would be orthodox and part of a global family of Anglicans, but not necessarily recognizing the right of the British government to appoint archbishops of Canterbury and run the Anglican Communion. We are here to support GAFCON. We are here to encourage GAFCON to look at the needs of North America with regards to restoring orthodoxy in the larger Anglican family.
GAFCON has been viewed in numerous media reports as an anti-homosexual movement. Is that the case?
In the media there is usually a desire to boil everything down to a couple of attention-grabbing sound bites. And sex and money are the two things that grab people's attention the fastest. Certainly there is a factor of human sexuality among the issues that are before the Anglican Communion. But they are not primary. They are secondary at best. The primary issues have to do with other questions: Who is Jesus Christ? What did he really do? Was his death really necessary? Did he really rise from the dead? And what authority does he have over men and women today?
And then there is the issue of Holy Scripture. One American bishop has been widely quoted as saying, "The Church wrote the Bible and the Church can rewrite the Bible." That point of view would represent a number of TEC bishops, although most might be wise enough not to say it so clearly.
On the other hand we have the New Testament scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed." There's a world of difference between those two statements. A big part of the Anglican Communion has chosen to line up with the Episcopal Church, believing that Jesus is optional and that the Bible can be reformulated to suit the culture. That said, it should surprise no one that difficulties arise in determining what is a proper sexual standard.
How do you respond to those who say that unity is more important than focusing on disagreement? Is GAFCON tearing apart the fabric of the Anglican Church?
Unity is useful only when there is agreement to begin with - agreement about what the truth is. If a ship is sinking, do all the passengers want to stay together and sink to the bottom for the sake of unity? Or do they want to get into lifeboats? Many of us have chosen lifeboats, and, by the grace of God, Nigeria and Uganda and Kenya and the Southern Cone and others have taken us in. But the idea that unity trumps truth is foolishness. It's the kind of bizarre statement that we have become used to hearing from those who have lost their theological bearings.
Do you equate this quest for unity with multiculturalism?
I really don't. Committed Muslims don't want to have their faith put into a big blender and somehow made into a multicultural soup. Neither do Orthodox Jews. Neither do practicing Hindus. And neither do Orthodox Christians. The people who want to recognize this so-called multiculturalism - those for whom anything goes, those who say "whatever works for you" - are in fact those who have lost their faith. They are groping around in the dark trying to find some excuse for being unable to see or hear.
In recent months, Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, has said that the adoption of some Shari'a law in the UK seems "unavoidable" and that doing so could help social cohesion. Yet some of the African bishops with whom you work have suffered tremendously under Shari'a law. What do you think about the archbishop's statements?
That the archbishop of Canterbury would make such a foolish remark about Shari'a law means that he has, in one sense, given up hope of continuing to have a traditional English nation. He has resigned himself to theological and legal chaos in his own country. That he has given up is very sad, especially because he is seen as a leader.
Who wants to follow a leader who has lost his own way? If Rowan Williams thinks that Shari'a law is inevitable, perhaps he needs to go and live under it without the safeguards of his archbishop's robes, to live as a common man under Shari'a law and then ask himself how he likes that and whether that's something he could really recommend for someone else.
Traditionally, Shari'a law forbids homosexuality. On the one hand Shari'a law "seems unavoidable" to the archbishop of Canterbury, and yet on the other hand he has not forbidden the ordination of homosexual Anglican bishops. Has there been a lot of discussion about this?
No, there has not really been a discussion about this incredible paradox. The archbishop says that Shari'a law is inevitable and yet, in a sense he has blessed homosexual issues by failing to take reasonable action that would be in accord with his office. Meanwhile, if each side moves forward, a collision between the two is inevitable. One would hope that a leader would look ahead and would have some wisdom as to how to lead his people away from that kind of situation.
Do you and the other GAFCON participants hope for further dialogue with the archbishop of Canterbury?
I think there may be continuing usefulness for the office of archbishop of Canterbury. I also think the usefulness of Rowan Williams is being marginalized more and more by his own actions and his own words, such that he becomes an embarrassment to others.
It is an odd situation in that the head of the Anglican Communion is essentially the product of Britain's prime minister… it essentially amounts to the British government running the church. And it runs not just the church but, in a colonial sense, the entire Anglican Communion. I think those days are coming to a close.
There is a need for the head of the Anglican Communion to be someone who is chosen by the Anglican Communion and answerable to them. He should not be subject to recall by any government but rather subject to recall by the people who elected him.
Why did GAFCON choose to come to Jerusalem?
At the First Christian Council of Jerusalem, recorded in the Book of Acts, the Apostles took counsel together, and from there Paul went out and began his missionary journeys. That council was a very important first step in authenticating the work that was being done. I think Jerusalem is a very apt place for Anglicanism to come back to, to take counsel together. From here we will go home, go back out into the world, having had the refreshment, the teaching and the redirection that this time in Jerusalem has afforded us.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
7.
Bishop David Anderson comments on the response of the Archbishop of Canterbury to GAFCON
July 3rd, 2008 Posted in Archbishop Of Canterbury, Global Anglican Future Conference, News |
The following is The Archbishop of Canterbury’s response to the final declaration of the Global Anglican Future Conference. Bishop David Anderson’s commentary and analysis have been added to the original text.
ABC: The Final Statement from the GAFCON meeting in Jordan and Jerusalem contains much that is positive and encouraging about the priorities of those who met for prayer and pilgrimage in the last week. The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues. I agree that the Communion needs to be united in its commitments on these matters, and I have no doubt that the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON’s deliberations. Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion.
Anderson: It is amazing that Dr. Williams would make this statement in light of the evidence to the contrary that the American Anglican Council has placed before him, especially in the Dar es Salaam Compliance documents. One is forced to ask whether Dr. William’s avoidance of the truth is deliberate and a tactical dissemblance. The evidence is clear that the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God is being contradicted by top Episcopal Church leaders, not the least of which is the Presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori. What will it take for Dr. Williams to acknowledge what is staring him in the face? Does Dr. Williams really want to know what is happening on his watch? We are sorry that we have to ask this; it is a question that in 2003 we would not have even thought to ask.
ABC: However, GAFCON’s proposals for the way ahead are problematic in all sorts of ways, and I urge those who have outlined these to think very carefully about the risks entailed.
Anderson: I do believe that GAFCON did indeed think about the risks entailed, weighed the much more problematic approach of waiting for Dr. Williams to do the right thing, and decided that, post-Panel of Reference, post-Dar es Salaam Communique, the way forward could not risk Lambeth again subverting right action.
ABC: A ‘Primates’ Council’ which consists only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion will not pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion.
Anderson: Since the primates in attendance at the GAFCON were validly elected by their respective provincial Houses of Bishops, in contrast to Dr. Williams, who was chosen by the British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the issue of legitimacy is an area he may wish to quietly pass by. The Primates’ attendance at GAFCON was a choice of free assembly, and their membership and participation in a Primates’ Council clearly supported by the large portion of the Anglican Communion represented by those present.
ABC: And any claim to be free to operate across provincial boundaries is fraught with difficulties, both theological and practical – theological because of our historic commitments to mutual recognition of ministries in the Communion, practical because of the obvious strain of responsibly exercising episcopal or primatial authority across enormous geographical and cultural divides.
Anderson: Why does Dr. Williams find crossing provincial boundaries to offer pastoral care a more grievous sin than the revisionist false gospel and persecution of the orthodox Anglicans that is the cause of the boundary crossing? Perhaps Dr. Williams is confusing the peculiarities of quantum physics with theological cause and effect. Additionally, the Communion is already so deeply torn in its fabric by the actions of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada and by Dr. Williams’ questionable leadership that mutual recognition of ministries is already something of the past. If he needs specifics, he should consider the list of bishops (I would suppose that I am included) who most of the communion do recognize, but he himself does not. As to great distance and cultural divides, I do note he uses email, fax and phone, and the Global South primates are equally adept in such usage; the colonial days of writing a letter and waiting for months for a steam ship to deliver it to Africa are over. Those overseas provinces having a mission presence in North America also have on-site bishops to provide more immediate ministry to the congregations - though of course those are some of the very bishops that Dr. Williams fails to recognize.
ABC: Two questions arise at once about what has been proposed. By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council? And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?
Anderson: One would presume that if primates can affirm the Jerusalem Statement, they could apply to the Primates’ Council for membership. As to discipline, several issues of discipline have arisen in North America, and effective measures have been applied. I am sure that if Dr. Williams is truly interested in this, details could be provided to him.
ABC: No-one should for a moment impute selfish or malicious motives to those who have offered pastoral oversight to congregations in other provinces; these actions, however we judge them, arise from pastoral and spiritual concern.
Anderson: The problem is that where interim measures could have helped, Dr. Williams has consistently blocked or ignored them. Witness the Panel of Reference, which if Dr. Williams wished, could have worked, but his inaction and screening only made matters worse. Additionally, TEC’s lack of Dar es Salaam Communique compliance, which was carefully documented and given to Dr. Williams prior to the TEC House of Bishop’s meeting in New Orleans, resulted in Dr. Williams giving them a passing grade.
ABC: But one question has repeatedly been raised which is now becoming very serious: how is a bishop or primate in another continent able to discriminate effectively between a genuine crisis of pastoral relationship and theological integrity, and a situation where there are underlying non-theological motivations at work?
Anderson: The answer is local, on-site supervision by North American bishops, which is now a reality.
ABC: We have seen instances of intervention in dioceses whose leadership is unquestionably orthodox simply because of local difficulties of a personal and administrative nature. We have also seen instances of clergy disciplined for scandalous behaviour in one jurisdiction accepted in another, apparently without due process. Some other Christian churches have unhappy experience of this problem and it needs to be addressed honestly.
Anderson: Perhaps instead of setting up a straw man, Dr. Williams could provide names, dates and places so that the reader could either agree with him over the seriousness of the problem, or alternatively, come to a different conclusion. Charges leveled by a revisionist bishop in Canada or the United States does not establish guilt; that is what the court system is for. When charges pertain to property or assets of the church that are titled or held by government or financial institutions, the county, state or federal court system would hold venue.
ABC: It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion.
Anderson: They have not been dismissed by GAFCON; the existing structures, however, have proved an obstacle to good governance, and any reformation will have to find ways to work around the structural dysfunction.
ABC: If they are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve.
Anderson: When instruments or structures of the Communion position themselves to block reformation and renewal, they may find that they render themselves irrelevant at best.
ABC: This challenge is one of the most significant focuses for the forthcoming Lambeth Conference. One of its major stated aims is to restore and deepen confidence in our Anglican identity. And this task will require all who care as deeply as the authors of the statement say they do about the future of Anglicanism to play their part.
Anderson: Dr. Williams was given an opportunity to a play a part in the future in October of 2006, and he chose to talk but not to act; in fact he played the silent partner to TEC’s disregard and arrogance toward the global Anglican Communion.
ABC: The language of ‘colonialism’ has been freely used of existing patterns. No-one is likely to look back with complacency to the colonial legacy. But emerging from the legacy of colonialism must mean a new co-operation of equals, not a simple reversal of power.
Anderson: Is is not interesting that those in ecclesial positions of power and privilege, when their ability to rule their supposed “equals” (as in primus inter pares) falters, do not wish a democratic shift to the centers of Anglicanism’s membership, but a co-operation of supposed equals … with Dr. Williams as the Archbishop of Canterbury remaining more equal than the others. GAFCON has served notice to Dr. Williams that they see through his words and actions, and a new relationship is required.
ABC: If those who speak for GAFCON are willing to share in a genuine renewal of all our patterns of reflection and decision-making in the Communion, they are welcome, especially in the shaping of an effective Covenant for our future together. I believe that it is wrong to assume we are now so far apart that all those outside the GAFCON network are simply proclaiming another gospel. This is not the case; it is not the experience of millions of faithful and biblically focused Anglicans in every province. What is true is that, on all sides of our controversies, slogans, misrepresentations and caricatures abound. And they need to be challenged in the name of the respect and patience we owe to each other in Jesus Christ.
Anderson: We have indeed exercised patience in Jesus with those who have caused and allowed the false gospel to be propagated, and now finally the time has come for action. The blame cannot be added up and simply divided by the 38 provinces to determine a relative share of the blame, and it is immature foolishness to suggest it. The blame for tearing the communion fabric at its deepest levels rests with two provinces and an Archbishop of Canterbury who, for whatever reason, has been unwilling to defend orthodox belief and practice. What needs to be challenged is the prevarication, duplicity and conspiracy of TEC, the Anglican Church of Canada, and those in Lambeth Palace who have aided and abetted them.
ABC: I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ‘wait for one another’. I would say the same to those in whose name this statement has been issued. An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents.
Anderson: The passage is a partial text having to do with decorum at the Lord’s Supper and, if you will, Parish Suppers, and has little to do with issues of false gospels and apostasy among some who formerly desired to be part of the discipline of the Lord. If the Apostles had waited indefinitely, they would all still be in Jerusalem.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
8.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1113
By Jordan Hylden
Monday, July 7, 2008, 6:41 AM
Even before it began, the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON, as its organizers called it) was dismissed as a failed attempt at schism—and hailed as a triumphant new beginning—for the long-troubled Anglican Communion.
In fact, however, it’s too soon to tell which it will be, even now that the conference has finished. A meeting of over one thousand conservative Anglicans held this June in Jerusalem, GAFCON stopped short of enacting schism with Canterbury. Instead, the final statement declared itself to be the charter of a new global “fellowship of confessing Anglicans.” As such, GAFCON was welcomed by Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury, as “positive and encouraging”—a sentiment shared by many and fully justified by the conference’s theological substance and irenic tone.
But questions and grounds for concern remain, and whether or not the movement represented by GAFCON will wind up serving the faith and unity of historic Anglicanism or lead to further fragmentation and schism still remains to be seen.
What happened in Jerusalem can be summed up under several headings. The conference was primarily attended by conservative Anglicans—from Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, West Africa, Tanzania, the Southern Cone, and the Sydney diocese of Australia, as well as by several conservative bishops from the American, Canadian, and English churches. In both numbers and influence, GAFCON was heavily but not exclusively African—leadership was assumed by primates such as Peter Akinola of Nigeria and Henry Orombi of Uganda, but the popular Australian evangelical archbishop Peter Jensen, among others, also exercised influence. The overall impression of many attendees was one of fellowship, resolve, and worship—in sharp contrast to the contentiousness and broken fellowship that has characterized many gatherings of Anglican leadership in the recent past.
The conference was also markedly evangelical. The theological documents produced by the conference (such as “The Way, The Truth, and the Life”) were all firmly set within the evangelical wing of Anglicanism. The perspicuity, divine inspiration, and self-interpreting nature of Scripture were recurrent themes; GAFCON attendees saw themselves as forthrightly standing up for the clarity of “God’s word written” and the paramount necessity of the Church’s obedience to it. Those of a more Catholic Anglican persuasion may legitimately worry if they have been left out of GAFCON’s vision of orthodoxy. While some Anglo-Catholics were indeed present, such as Bishop Jack Iker of the Fort Worth diocese, they were a decided and evident minority.
As for GAFCON’s enemies, little doubt was left that the attendees of the conference intend to drive away the errant doctrines of theological liberalism from the Anglican Communion, and are prepared to act independently of Canterbury and the formal structures of Anglicanism. The final statement cited “three undeniable facts” as the root of the crisis facing global Anglicanism: first, the promotion of a “different gospel” (read: defiance of Scripture and acceptance of theological pluralism) contrary to apostolic teaching; second, the broken communion brought upon the Anglican Communion by the preaching of this false gospel (particularly with regard to the American and Canadian churches’ acceptance of same-sex unions and the American church’s elevation of an actively gay man, Gene Robinson, to the episcopacy); and third, the “manifest failure” of the existing structures of Anglicanism to do anything about it.
More positively, the GAFCON statement spelled out fourteen “tenets of orthodoxy,” which they regard as foundational to orthodox Anglican theology. Dedication to the gospel of Christ and subscription to the Holy Scriptures as “the Word of God written,” containing “all things necessary for salvation,” come first, along with the need to interpret the Scriptures with due respect for Church tradition and the “rule of faith” expressed by the first four ecumenical councils and the three historic creeds. (Here, Anglo-Catholics have something to cheer about.)
Christ’s universal lordship, atoning death, and glorious resurrection are proclaimed as securing the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith. The three-fold order of ministry is upheld, and the unique normative status of Christian marriage (understood in its traditional sense) is maintained. The Thirty-Nine Articles are held up as authoritative for Anglican doctrine, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as authoritative for Anglican prayer and worship (as locally adapted), and the orders and jurisdiction of Anglicans who ascribe to orthodox faith and practice are recognized as universally valid in the Communion.
Rowan Williams, in response, judged that these fourteen tenets would be found “acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province.” In large part he is no doubt correct, but with significant exceptions. The Thirty-Nine Articles have not been strictly and uniformly enforced in the Anglican world for quite some time. In the American church, they are included in the prayer book only as historical documents. Re-establishing a reality that has simply not existed in Anglicanism since the nineteenth century will be, to put it mildly, difficult.
Recourse to the 1662 prayer book will also be tricky: Would the American prayer book of 1979 be judged a sufficient adaptation? If not, would the old 1928 book do? Finally, to make recognition of holy orders and Episcopal jurisdiction dependent upon orthodox faith and practice is of course absolutely necessary, but more than a bit difficult to pull off in practice. Who is orthodox, and who is to say? Arguably, this question goes to the heart of the entire Anglican controversy.
The GAFCON answer to this question seems to be a revived and reinforced confessionalism, based on the Thirty-Nine Articles and the fourteen tenets of the Jerusalem Declaration. As the statement makes patently clear, the GAFCON Anglicans have little confidence that the existing structures of Anglicanism can be trusted to judge in matters of orthodoxy and Church discipline. GAFCON asked that its new fellowship of confessing Anglicans be headed by a Primates’ Council, whose function will be to “authenticate and recognize confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy, and congregations”— whether they are in full communion with Canterbury or not.
The principle is similar to that already used to justify cross-boundary interventions in the United States by the Nigerian, Rwandan, and other churches, as accepted by the 2007 primates’ meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania—namely, that cross-boundary interventions are undesirable in the long run but acceptable as a temporary measure until a Communion-wide solution can be found.
In this, GAFCON has not closed off the possibility of participating in Lambeth and the other existing structures of the Anglican Communion; indeed, the Tanzanian bishops decided to attend both GAFCON and Lambeth, along with several American bishops such as Mark Lawrence of South Carolina. That means GAFCON has not quite forsworn cooperation with the rest of Anglicanism. But they do seem to be saying that if the Anglican Communion won’t discipline itself, then the GAFCON Anglicans will take care of themselves, with or without Canterbury.
These are, no doubt, strong words and forceful actions, and they have not gone without criticism from other quarters of the Anglican world. The Episcopal Church’s presiding bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori, referred to GAFCON as merely the “latest emission” from those who consider themselves the only “true believers.” (In this context, one remembers the persistent complaint of African Anglicans, repeated at GAFCON, that the American and English churches all too often remain in a mindset of colonial arrogance.)
Rowan Williams, by contrast, asked two serious and pertinent questions: “By what authority are primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any primatial council? And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?”
The answers to such questions are not clear. What precisely are the criteria by which a bishop or province will be judged heretical enough to merit intervention? And who will do the judging? Apparently the answers are: the Jerusalem Declaration, and the new Primates’ Council. Already, the GAFCON statement envisions the creation of a new orthodox American province parallel to the Episcopal Church. But as both Rowan Williams and N.T. Wright have pointed out, there remain a number of unquestionably orthodox American dioceses that have not signaled any intention of leaving the Episcopal Church. Are they to be replaced? Are they still authentically Anglican? Who is to say?
These difficult questions are at the heart of the entire present struggle over the soul of Anglicanism. Orthodox critics of GAFCON such as Williams and Wright—along with theologians such as Chris Seitz, Ephraim Radner, Philip Turner, and primates such as Drexel Gomez of the West Indies—argue that sufficient answers cannot come from ad hoc interventions and councils. They must come instead by reforming Anglicanism from within. These critics stake their hopes on the proposed Anglican Covenant, due to be discussed at Lambeth next week, the principal goal of which is to arrive at a mutually agreed-upon method for deciding disputed matters with reference to substantive and coherent theological criteria.
Unfortunately, it is not clear that Lambeth and the other existing structures of Anglicanism can accomplish any such thing. Many hope so, against great odds, and not a few continue to work and pray that it might. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, one of the Church of England’s leading thinkers, said at GAFCON that Anglicanism, if it is to be an effective confessing church, needs also to be a “conciliar church . . . to have councils at every level, including worldwide, that are authoritative, that can make decisions that stick.” Orthodox Anglicans going to Lambeth agree; that is why they are going, and that is why they have placed their hopes in the proposed Anglican Covenant. If they do not succeed, the GAFCON fellowship will almost assuredly step in to fill the gap, as a new confessional church in the evangelical Anglican tradition. Anglicanism will not be what it used to be, and some will argue that it no longer genuinely exists.
It might be too much to say that a good Lambeth could save Anglicanism from such a fate, but it is probably not too much to say that a Lambeth gone wrong could render such schism unavoidable. Certainly it is not too much to predict that faithful Anglicans everywhere will be working, watching, and praying for guidance.
Jordan Hylden, a former junior fellow at First Things, is a graduate student at Duke Divinity School.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
9.
From the Rector of All Souls Church to the Editor of The Independent newspaper
July 3rd, 2008 Posted in News |
Dear Sir
You published an article today under the headline "Anglican rebels punched gay rights activists". [Here.]
As the alleged incident took place at the church of which I am Rector I have spent some time today trying to track down details concerning the alleged incident. The following seem to me to be relevant.
1. The event was oversubscribed and no-one was therefore admitted without a ticket they had paid for. This was true regardless of rank, sexuality etc.
2. The activists attempted to enter through a fire door entrance, pushed one of my staff members who admits that he pushed them back out of the door and closed it. He denies any punch was thrown as does another member of staff who witnessed the event.
3. I have spoken to a number of people including two members of staff who had conversations with Peter Tatchell on the steps of the church and no reference was made to any of them about any alleged punch.
4. No member of staff that I can find, or anyone else that I have spoken to, was approached by your reporter to confirm or explain the allegation.
The fact that you have headlined this damaging allegation without checking or substantiating it seems at least unprofessional journalism and not the kind of reporting I would expect from a serious newspaper like The Independent. Would you please take steps to remedy the damage you have caused immediately.
Yours sincerely
Hugh Palmer
(Rector, All Souls Church)
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO