Anglicanism's hectic summer

This is a copy of my latest CEN column, reproduced also by Lisa Nolland on Anglican Mainstream. Thank you Lisa.

When Gafcon (the Global Anglican Future Conference) was first announced, I was utterly dismayed.

Never mind the theology. How on earth were we going to cover it? For religion correspondents the Olympics are coming four years early. Our task is Herculean. The events we must race between, holding high our flaming batons of "truth" and "justice", include Lambeth, General Synod, Methodist Conference, the usual Roman Catholic conferences that happen around this time, along with various wars around the globe involving Islam and other religions.

Not only did Gafcon land slap bang in the middle of all the Christian ecclesiological war fare, it also landed like some unexploded hand grenade in the middle of one of these very real Islamic conflict zones. Did these people not have children? Were no women involved? Will I ever see my son this summer? That’s why I’ve disappeared off skiing a record three times this spring, to escape into the mountains while I can. I wanted, no needed, some of the mountain-top fresh air that is in such short supply in the under-air conditioned Times office at Wapping, along with some ‘quality time’ with my family and friends before the internecine Anglican wars that dominate my professional life separate me from them for weeks at a time.

So those were the entirely subjective reasons why I was appalled by the sudden appearance of Gafcon on the diary. Obviously, they can be ignored completely. I just wanted to let off steam a little (the steam cooked up by our soporifically stuffy office.) Looking at it in a more objective fashion arouses a different response. When I interviewed the Archbishop of Nigeria, Dr Peter Akinola, last year we discussed in some depth whether he would be bringing his bishops to Lambeth. He indicated not.

The reason he gave was the failure to invite Martyn Minns, one of Dr Akinola’s bishops, albeit in the US. To the bishops in Nigeria, this failure to recognise the validity of Bishop Minns was an insult to the judgement of the Primate in consecrating him and to the episcopal integrity of the entire house of bishops. He felt exactly the same about it as do the US bishops about the failure to invite Gene Robinson, although that will not of course prevent them from attending Lambeth. And Bishop Gene will be at Lambeth, although not in any official capacity.

It is to Dr Williams’ credit that he did not invite the disgraceful ex-Bishop Kunonga of Zimbabwe. But for an Archbishop whose past writings indicate that he is dedicated to an inclusive, united Church and Gospel, it is incredible to me that he invited neither Bishop Gene nor the conservative bishops whose consecrations are deemed to be"unorthodox" or irregular in some way.

I understand that conversations are taking place now about the possibility of inviting some or all of the conservative bishops, or Bishop Minns at least. That could perhaps also open the door to some kind of official invitation to Bishop Gene, allowing the organisers of Lambeth a little more control over what I understand is going to be a spectacular series of staged events which will delight our news editors and give us even more to write about over the summer.

But to issue the invitations now would, sadly, be pointless. It might have made a difference months ago, but now it is too little, and too late. Gafcon will take place, and it will be a humbling triumph of prayer and fellowship, with between 200 and 300 bishops who still believe in an Anglican future of some kind, and the laity determined to help make that future a reality.

Lambeth will also take place, denuded of so many of the black faces that make the Communion such a joy for Archbishops to travel around when things get too hot at home. The Anglican Communion has for decades, even before it went by the name, been an integral part of a peaceful Commonwealth treasured by our Queen and so many in the country she heads.  At a time when the Christian fellowship offered by the Commonwealth and Communion is needed in our world more than ever, the danger is that Lambeth will display a disintegrating Anglican Church that has lost its effectiveness and has become a symbol of schism. We should all be ashamed of ourselves, and I include myself in that.

I might not be able to go, but somehow, I’ll try and ensure that The Times covers Gafcon. There must be a future for what Anglicanism once represented.

Comments

[David Palmer]

Andrew, whilst I might agree with you that "what still astonishes me is that conservative evangelicals should choose this particular issue to get all excited about", there is always a tipping point which in fact conceals a number of issues rumbling beneath as it were. This is the nature of these things. In a former life I was involved in factory management and during the 60's and 70's it was usually little things that sparked industrial disputes.

Nevertheless, it is interesting why the homosexual issue turns out to be the tipping point - it is a rather unseemly thing, yet when Bishops and their dioceses have to fork out vast sums and undergo sensitivity training over the issue, you have to think may be it is a serious issue. And when you go back and think about Gen 1:26-28 and Gen 2:24 and then wander off and think about Sodom and Gomorrah, and Lot and his two daughters and a few other things like the future of the human race, etc, etc, then may be it is not so surprising that homosexuality is the issue that the good ship, "Anglican Communion, flounders on.

Personally I would prefer something like the doctrine of God or justification by faith, but then I'm a Presbyterian addicted to confessionalism and probably shouldn't be commenting on Anglican affairs.

[Malcolm+]

I seem to recall, Alan, that your ancestors were making a similar argument when the passed the Public Worship Regulation Act in 1874.

A few ritualist priests were persecuted, a few were prosecuted, five were jailed and Fr. MacKonochie was essentially harried to death.

But it didn't really work.

The Anglican Church of Canada IS the Anglican Church in Canada, revisionism and a handful of "continuing Anglicans" notwithstanding.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Anglicanism is hardly a "systematic ecclesiology" but it does have limits which the Anglican Church of Canada has proudly transgressed.

It has thus become itself a "Continuing Church" claiming to be Anglican, but having in fact forfeited its place at the table of authentic Anglicanism.

[andrew holden]

David, it was our boss who said 'by their fruits' and all that. I don't know any fundamentalists who see the epithet as discourteous, rather they wear it happily as a badge of honour. Schismatic? Well GAFCON is a clear step down that road especially as many of the attendees will be boycotting Lamveth as well. It's hardly designed to foster unity in the Church!

As for pushing the barrow too far, I've nade it clear only that I think the actions were premature not that they were wrong. A matter of timing not principle. What still astonishes me (with my evangelical head on!) is that conservative evangelicals should choose this particular issue to get all excited about. ISTM that there are far more important issues - though none of them are, in my opinion, worth denying a fellow(?)christian's right to belong to the same church as me.

Note that question mark is because I guess that many of these fellows no longer count me as a brother in Christ anyway and consign me to 'outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth' reserved specially for liberal heretics.

I'm sure MALCOLM+ is right about the nature of authentic Anglicanism and that GAFCON is making full steam away from it.

[Malcolm+]

The "Gafconites" may well choose to keep calling themselves Anglican. Innumerable "continuing Anglican " or "reformed Anglican" groups have done that over the years. There are dozens of ecclesial groupings that call themselves Anglican.

Seems to me, however, that "authentic" Anglicanism does not treat the unity of the institution is so cavalier a fashion. Neither does it demand that all who call themselves Anglican conform to particular theological viewpoints.

And, given that Anglicanism as a systematic ecclessiology, arises from the Elizabethan settlement, it seems odd to call someone an "authentic Anglican" when they are on record claiming that the Elizabethan settlement was a mistake.

[David Palmer]

"I suspect that lay presidency will be a bigger cause of division than Mr. Palmer presumes."

Malcolm+,

Forget Lay Presidency. It was all part of the woman's ordination issue of 10+ years ago.

Sydney Anglicans haven't talked about it for a long time, nothing on their website for ages.

And why would they talk about lay presidency, when their training institution, Moore College is overflowing with students and most Parishes have multiple ministers. Talk of lay presidency never made sense in a Sydney context.

Andrew Holden, I think you do rather prove my point - the (American/Canadian) liberals have gone several steps too far, but then they seem to have their supporters in the C of E as well.

If you knew Dr Jensen you would hardly call him a schismatic, fundamentalist. Its amazing what distance can do to common courtesy.

However, I'm sure you're right - everything is going to become a whole lot more messy, though probably in slow time. I'm sure the "Gafonites" as you call them will proudly wear the name of (authentic) Anglicans and there's not much you can do about it, only rue the day that fellow(?) liberals pushed the barrow too far!

[andrew holden]

Why should any of us be neutral about something as important as this? I expect all Anglicans, and not a few concerned members of other churches, to be very biased indeed about it. It's one thing to be concerned for own's version of the truth, it's quite another to sacrifice every other important Anglican principle upon its altar.

Whatever else the Gafconites decide to call themselves I don't think they should be able to take the name Anglican with them!

[John]

Mark Oakley is hardly a neutral observer in this debate, whatever his politics may be.

[Malcolm+]

I suspect that lay presidency will be a bigger cause of division than Mr. Palmer presumes.

[andrew holden]

David Palmer wrote: "the thing that has caused the union known as the Anglican Communion to split is the liberal bid to throw out/rewrite the Bible."

That doesn't wash with me. There is nothing particularly new in what the the liberal wing of the Anglican Church has done that hasn't been around, and tolerated, for 150 years or longer. This is oversimplified prejudicially by those who claim this is a battle between liberals and conservatives!

What is at issue is the very soul of the Anglican Church which recognised the need for tolerance and accommodation in the interpretation (not the throwing out!) of scripture.

As Mark Oakley (hardly a rampant liberal!) wrote in the Church Times last week, "The division...is a division between, first, those who are willing to say that other Christians, who have different views or lifestyles to themselves, are still, nevertheless, Christian, and have a Christian integrity that must be part of the Church; and, second, those who think that this simply cannot and must not be the case."

As he goes on to say those who hold to the first, traditionally Anglican view, are from every tradition and theological persuasion in the Anglican Church. They are the ones currently focussed on the Covenant as an (admitedly imperfect) means of allowing "a future for what Anglicanism once represented". The Gafconites are now clearly headed down the road to schism by making impossible demands they know will not be met in order to 'wash their hands' of their crucifixion of the Church.

I don't pretend that the liberals in TEC are blameless either - in fact the more extreme may well be vey similar to the extreme fundamentalists on the other side - maybe they deserve each other, yet the Anglican Church does not deserve what they are trying to do to it.

The liberals in general have pushed a particular issue, important as it is, far further and far quicker than was sensible. Neverthless they have not tried to remake the church in their own image as schismatic, fundamentalist sect - which is what Akinola and Jenson are about. Evangelicals in Sydney may be delighted by this - but I doubt the more 'open' Anglican Evangelicals of the British 'Fulcrum' variety will be having a party any time soon.

[David Palmer]

Ruth,

Thank you for a beautifully written piece.

You say, "there must be a future for what Anglicanism once represented".

Knowing Sydney Anglicans as one part of authentic Anglicanism, I'm sure you're right.

Andrew says, "It won't last, of course, because schism is catching. The Akinolites will fragment when western conservatives realise just how medieval many of their other friends are."

Whilst it is possible that Andrew is right, what he forgets is that those in the evangelical wing have always kept close relationships with their former mission fields, even continuing today to provide personnel in support roles to African leadership.

Robert Ian Williams is a Roman Catholic convert (no problem with that) making mischief - though it will be interesting to see how the evangelical/anglo catholic thing plays out. However they have more or less got on together and with more liberal elements for 150 yrs - the thing that has caused the union known as the Anglican Communion to split is the liberal bid to throw out/rewrite the Bible.

[andrew holden]

I imagine that support from religious people for past wars was pretty high in the US - didn't make those wars religious any more than this one is.

It is the case for war that matters.

[George Parr]

A 2002 survey by the Tarrance Group published in Third World Network found that 69% of America's Evangelical Christians backed Israel and Washington's 'War on Terror', some ten points higher than the national average. Evangelical Christians made up about one third of America's population. Two-thirds of the same group backed Israel's war against Palestinian terrorists.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Dear Riuth,

I hope when you cover GAFCON that you bring out their heterodoxy. How on one side you have the lay presidency of Sydney and on the other the sacerdotalism Anglo-Catholicism of bishops like Iker and Schofield.
It is a politcal alliance, hiding two interpreations of the Gospel.

For instance the Evangelicals believe that to be born again is a spiritual conversion and the Anglo-catholics that it is to be baptized.

Many of the Anglo-catholics openly discount the thirt nine articles, particularly on eucharistic reservation and worship of the consecrated elements.

Amongst the Evangelicals there is no agreement on divorce and re-marriage, male headship and female ordination.

Indeed there may be no out gay bishops but there are divorced and re-married ones.

This from a Conference which will no doubt uphold the Unbiblical doctrine of the sufficiency and sole authority of the Holy Bible.

[andrew holden]

"Can you give me an example of a war that involves Islam that does not equally involve Christianity or some other world religion?"

Well personally I think your use of the word 'equally' is important. The two current wars that come to mind are in Iraq and Afghanistan - arguably part of the same conflict, the so called 'war on terror'. Whilst not a war directly waged 'by or against' Islam I'd say that the balance is seriously on the side of extremist Islam being a major inspiration for the Islamofacist terrorism that kicked off these comflicts whilst Christianity is uninvolved or at least incidental to the case for war - and some of the 'allies' in the 'war on terror' are themselves Muslims.

So despite Tony Blair's personal faith I think Christianity is 'not guilty' if you are trying to apportion blame for this conflict to religion. Whereas Islam (at least in its extremist versions) is directly implicated.

[John]

Andrew, the Windsor Report has been roundly ignored and even those who produced it are failing to observe its recommendations, by inviting the consecrators of Gene Robinson and Bp Michael Ingham to Lambeth.

There is little point in pursuing the debate further.

[Simon Sarmiento]

"various wars around the globe involving Islam."

What does this phrase mean?

Can you give me an example of a war that involves Islam that does not equally involve Christianity or some other world religion?

Would this phrasing get past the sub-editors at The Times?

(Simon it means what it says, although maybe you do have a point, I'll change it to say 'Islam and other religions.' Ruth)

[andrew holden]

John, I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me and believe that there is room for many views in the Anglican Communion. It is not me who is threatening to excomunicate and disenfranchise those who disagree with me nor am I the one who is already in process of setting up my own branch of the Church because they have not been so disciplined.

I agree with Ruth in one respect - that all the Bishops should have been invited to Lambeth including both Robinson and Minns. The result would have been no different because it is the Akinolites who won't tolerate the differences of TEC and want to set up their own Anglican Sect.

I have yet to see any of the humility, let alone prayer and fellowship (except with approved 'sound' individuals) that Ruth thinks will be the Hallmark of Gafcon. It would be a refreshing change if it happened like that and I would be very pleased. Past experience of the leaders of Gafcon doesn't suggest that it will indulge in much more than the usual sex obsessed bashing of liberal Anglicans with lots of mutual back slapping as the extreme fundamentalists at long last get to run things their own way.

It won't last, of course, because schism is catching. The Akinolites will fragment when western conservatives realise just how medieval many of their other friends are - and anyway they will want to pursue their own doctrinal purity over issues such as the substitutionary theory of the atonement and lay presidency at the Eucharist.

That's really why GAFCON is the wrong road - and why true conservatives (actually I swing both ways as a 'liberal eveangelical') will be at Lambeth trying to find a way forward rather than at GAFCON on the way back!

(rg adds: yes I must admit I draw the line at lay presidency. I fear this might be the conservative fault line, although it might not cause fracture just yet at Gafcon. It will become apparent later, I think.)

[Malcolm+]

Seems to me that GAFFEPRONE actually marks the surrender of the "conservative" movement. They have ceded the field to their opponents, and they have done so in such a way that they have even managed to alienate a goodly number of their allies.

There will be prayer an fellowship when these puffed-up prelates impose themselves on Bishop Dawani. But it is no triumph.

Their absence from Lambeth is surely the sign that schism has been effected. But it is a false front to pretend that the prelatial perambulation in Palestine is any less a sign of the rending of Christ's body.

[Peter Carrell]

It is surprising that so many Anglicans have a preformed assessment of what the true character of GAFCON will be before the event has happened. (I thought reason figured somewhere in the mix of things Anglicans value ...)

It would be helpful to all concerned if some excellent reporting did take place somehow so reliable conclusions about GAFCON can be reached after the event.

My evangelical diocese (Nelson, NZ) is sending a representative to GAFCON to observe, reflect, and digest proceedings. Not to make a grab for power!

Peter Carrell

[John]

It could not be plainer what Andrew Holden thinks! The petulant cry of the liberal who cannot bear anyone to disagree!

[Doug Chaplin]

Ruth, when you did take up the job of Chris Sugden's press officer?
Never mind, on this topic, you might enjoy my April Fool

(rg writes: v funny, and I also enjoyed the comments, such as that from 'rowan williams'.....)

[andrew holden]

Ruth, I couldn't believe that you wrote this when I read it in the CEN (yes a few liberals stillread it). Hardly biased about Gafcon are we?

Of course even journalists are entitled to an opinion but "Gafcon will take place, and it will be a humbling triumph of prayer and fellowship, with between 200 and 300 bishops who still believe in an Anglican future of some kind....?"

Really? My own opinion is that its a gathering of power hungry bishops who wish to impose their prejudices on the rest of the Church and are throwing their collective mitres out of the cot because we won't dance to their tune. If anything is a symbol of closed minds already made up about schism it is GAFCON.

Anyway, thanks for posting this here so we all know in advance what you think.