Summer of Schism: Cantuar slams Gafcon
A strong statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams warning of the risks being taken by Gafcon. He urges them to think carefully, says the way ahead will be problematic and challenges those who have accepted clergy disciplined for 'scandalous' behaviour in another jurisdiction to think again. Here I understand him to have been referring to priests such as TEC's Sam Pascoe, stripped of his licence for an inappropriate relationship with an adult parishioner and then reinstated under a Ugandan bishop. Read it all below. This pic shows London's Rev Rosemary Priestly with her baby Joseph, seven weeks, at a press conference at Westminster Abbey this morning to promote the argument for women bishops to be approved by General Synod this coming weekend without any special legal protection for opponents. Senior clergy from the Abbey, St Paul's and Southwark were there, as well as MPs and Baroness Howe of the Lords. Responses from CofE's Bishop of Durham and TEC's Bishop John Chane of Washington below.
Archbishop responds to GAFCON statement
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has responded to the final declaration of the Global Anglican Future Conference with the following statement:
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
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.
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. 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.
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?
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. 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? 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.
It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion. 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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
© Rowan Williams
Bishop Chane tells The Times in response:
"The archbishop's thoughtful letter is helpful, and his defense of the Communion's structures is persuasive. I am particularly grateful to hear him say that "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." This slanderous bit of boilerplate has been repeated frequently by the opponents of the Episcopal Church, and it is heartening to know that the archbishop realizes that it false.
'I am quite concerned however that Archbishop Williams seems not to understand that there are primates, bishops, and others in the Communion who are actively seeking to undermine his office. He says that we should not "input selfish or malicious motives to those who have offered pastoral oversight to congregations in other provinces." But there is no doubt that extending such oversight is an effort to foment discord, and punish those who argue on behalf of the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of our Communion. Peter Akinola is unwilling to articulate a simple condemnation of violence against homosexuals. What more does he have to do to persuade the archbishop that his views are dangerous, malicious and un-Christian?'
Dunelm says:
'I spent this last week in a great celebration of the love and power of God
in the gospel of Jesus Christ. I confirmed many new believers. I installed a
dynamic new rector in a key parish. I assisted in consecrating a wonderful
man as the new Bishop of Stockport. I spent four days in prayer and pastoral
conversations with twenty-seven ordinands, listening to their breathtaking
stories of God’s power, guidance, and (in some cases) profound healing, and
praying with them for their new ministries. All this climaxed in two
wonderful ordination services, with great crowds, great singing, great
praying, and above all a delight in and celebration of God’s presence, God’s
gospel, and the power of God’s Spirit to love Jesus and make his good news
known in our diocese and parishes.
So it was with great interest that I heard that many Anglicans had spent
that same week in Jerusalem – which has been, over the years, a special
place for me, too – to celebrate the same gospel, the same God, the same
love and power of Jesus, the same dynamic and life-changing message through
the work of the Spirit. As I read the GAFCON communiqué, phrase after phrase
said to me ‘How wonderful that my brothers and sisters gathered there were
joining with me in this great adventure we call God’s kingdom!’
I warmed, too, to GAFCON’s statement of our contemporary context. I have
long believed and taught that our new century presents new problems
(secularism, pluralism, the decline of modernity with nothing to put in its
place, and much else) and that this means a great, fresh opportunity for the
gospel. I have been saying for years that, in this context, we shouldn’t be
surprised that serious challenges arise from within the church itself,
offering the world a pseudo-gospel, a caricature of the world-changing love
of God in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, an attempt to hold the
outward form of godliness while denying its real power. I have believed and
taught for years that we will have to work through these challenges if,
instead of merely being distracted and having our gospel energies soaked up,
we are to come through with the fresh message our culture (and individuals
within it!) so badly need. If mission is our priority – as it certainly is
for me and my diocese – then we should expect to face serious theological
and moral challenges, and to have to overcome them in prayer and deeper
study of scripture.
And of course I have found myself involved in the troubled situation of our
Communion following the disastrous events of 2003. I have grieved at the
muddled teaching which has allowed all kinds of confusions about Christian
doctrine, behaviour and even the nature of Anglicanism to abound, with
disastrous consequences. I have shared the frustration of many at the fact
that we don’t possess the kind of structures that would enable us to deal
straightforwardly and clearly with the complex problems that have faced us.
As Archbishop Rowan has said, our present ‘instruments of Communion’ were
not designed to meet this kind of problem, and we badly need to find new
ways forward. I, with others, have given a lot of time and energy to work on
all this, and the Archbishop’s statement that the forthcoming Lambeth
Conference will take Windsor and the Covenant as its basic road-map were
very heartening. So I fully agree with the GAFCON statement – and with
Archbishop Rowan – that the Communion instruments have not been able to deal
with the problems, and that we need to find better ways of going about it.
Part of the genius of Anglicanism has been to be reformed by the gospel but
always ready for fresh reformations by that same gospel: to recognise that
God has more light to break out of his holy word, and that this may lead us
to do things in new ways, sometimes setting us free from tired structures
and sometimes creating new structures for new gospel purposes. That is
precisely what Windsor is proposing, and what Lambeth will be pursuing.
What’s more, it is enormously exciting to live at a time when new leadership
is arising from places completely outside the north Atlantic axis. Africa
was one of the great cradles of early Christianity, producing such towering
minds as Tertullian and Augustine. Most of us have long ago moved away from
any idea that Christianity, or even Anglicanism, somehow ‘belongs’ to
England or northern Europe. In my own diocese we love our link with Lesotho,
and always find that visits from our friends there bring new energy and joy
to our parishes and schools. Just as you don’t have to go to Jerusalem to
meet Jesus – he is alive and present to heal and save in every place! – so
it’s obvious that you don’t have to go to Canterbury to be part of the
Anglican family. However, as I know, going to Jerusalem can help. Pilgrimage
can add a new dimension to our awareness of who Jesus was and is; it has
done that for me, as it clearly has done for those attending GAFCON.
Likewise, the historic link with Canterbury is not to be dismissed. Cutting
your links with the past can be like cutting off the roots of a tree.
Reconnecting with our roots – and, where necessary, refreshing and cleaning
them – is always better than pretending we don’t need them. But what matters
is of course the fruit. Here in my diocese, as in so many in England, we are
refreshing our roots and seeing real fruit; but we don’t imagine we are
self-sufficient. On the contrary, we know we have a great deal to learn from
brothers and sisters in many other parts of the world, Africa included. I
would have hoped, actually, that all this would now go without saying: that
we have long moved beyond the sterile stand-off between ‘colonialism’ and
‘post-colonialism’. We are brothers and sisters in Christ. That’s what
matters.
I and my colleagues in this diocese, like so many others, share exactly in
the sense that we are a fellowship ‘confessing the faith of Christ
crucified, standing firm for the gospel in the global and Anglican context’,
sharing too the goal ‘to reform, heal and revitalise the Anglican Communion
and expand its mission to the world’ and ‘to give clear and certain witness
to Jesus Christ’. For this reason, I know that the GAFCON leaders can’t have
intended to imply (as a ‘suspicious’ reading of their text might suggest)
that they are the only ones who really believe all this, that they and they
alone care about such things. The rest of us, no doubt – including several
of us who were not invited to GAFCON – are eager to share in any fresh
movements of the Spirit that are going ahead. And as we do so I know that
the GAFCON leaders would want us to express the various questions that
naturally come to mind as we contemplate what they have said to us. Just as
they wouldn’t want anyone to swallow uncritically the latest pronouncement
from Canterbury or New York, so clearly they wouldn’t want us merely to
glance at their document, see that it’s ‘all about the gospel’, and then
conclude that we must sign up without thinking through what’s being said and
why. It is in that spirit that I raise certain questions which seem to me
important precisely because of our shared goals (the advancement of the
gospel), our shared context (the enormous challenges of contemporary society
and of a church often muddled in theology and ethics and lacking the
structures to cope), and our shared heritage (the Anglican tradition with
its Articles, Prayer Books and historic roots).
Central to these questions is the puzzle about the new proposed structure. I
am sure the GAFCON organisers are as horrified as I am to see today’s
headlines about ‘a new church’. That doesn’t seem to be what they intended.
But for that reason it is all the more strange to reflect on what the
proposed ‘Primates’ Council’ is all about. What authority will it have, and
how will that work? Who is to ‘police’ the boundaries of this new body – not
least to declare which Anglicans are ‘upholding orthodox faith and practice’
(Article 11 of the ‘Jerusalem Declaration’), and who have denied it (Article
13)? Who will be able to decide (as in Article 12) which matters are
‘secondary’ and which are primary, and by what means? (What, for instance,
about Eucharistic vestments and practices? What about women priests and
bishops?) Who will elucidate the relationship between the 39 Articles and
the Book of Common Prayer, on the one hand, and the 14 Articles of GAFCON on
the other, and by what means? It is precisely questions like these, within
the larger Anglican world, which have proved so problematic in the last five
years, and the ‘Declaration’ is actually a strange document which doesn’t
help us address them. Many at GAFCON may think the answers will be obvious;
in some clear-cut cases they may be. But there will be many other cases
where they will not. It is precisely because I share the officially stated
aims of GAFCON that I am extremely concerned about these proposals, and urge
all those who likewise share that concern to concentrate their prayers and
their work on addressing the issues in the way which, remarkably, GAFCON
never mentioned, namely, the development of the Anglican Covenant and the
fulfilment of the recommendations of the Windsor Report. I am delighted that
many of the bishops who were at GAFCON are also coming to Lambeth, where
their help in pursuing these goals will be invaluable.
In particular, though, there is something very odd about the proposal to
form a ‘Council’ and then to ask such a body to ‘authenticate and recognise
confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and congregations’ – and then, as
an addition, ‘to encourage all Anglicans to promote the gospel and defend
the faith’. Many Anglicans around the world intend to do that in any case,
and will not understand why they need to be ‘recognised’ or ‘authenticated’
by a new, self-selected and non-representative body to which they were not
invited and which will not itself, it seems be accountable to anyone else.
Of course, within the larger global context, not least in North America, I
can understand the perceived need for something like this. I know how warmly
the proposals have already been welcomed by many in America whose situation
has been truly dire. But I also know from my own situation the dangerous
ambiguities that will result from the suggestion that there should be a new
‘territorial jurisdiction for provinces and dioceses of the Anglican
Communion, in those areas where churches and leaders are denying the
orthodox faith or are preventing its spread.’ Sadly, as I suspect many at
GAFCON simply didn’t realise, that kind of language has been used, in my
personal experience, to attempt to justify various kinds of high-handed
activity. It offers a blank cheque to anyone who wants to defy a bishop for
whatever reasons, even if the bishop in question is scrupulously orthodox,
and then to claim the right to alternative jurisdictional oversight. This
cannot be the way forward; nor do I think most of those at GAFCON intended
such a thing. That, of course, is the risk when documents are drafted at
speed.
In short, my hope and prayer is that the spiritual energy, the sense of
celebration, the eagerness for living and preaching the gospel, which were
so evident at GAFCON, can and will be brought to the forum where we badly
need it, namely, the existing central councils of the Anglican Communion. I
understand only too well the frustration that many have felt at these
bodies. But if GAFCON is to join up with the great majority of faithful,
joyful Anglicans around the world, rather than to invite them to leave their
present allegiance and sign up to a movement which is as yet – to put it
mildly – strange in form and uncertain in destination, it is not so much
that GAFCON needs to invite others to sign up and join in. Bishops, clergy
and congregations should think very carefully before taking such a step,
which will have enormous and confusing consequences. Rather, GAFCON itself
needs to bring its rich experience and gospel-driven exuberance to the
larger party where the rest of us are working day and night for the same
gospel, the same biblical wisdom, the same Lord.
+THOMAS DUNELM:
[The diocese has offered also this summary of the bishop's comments:
GAFCON was a great celebration of the gospel of the love and transforming
power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The church needs this energy and
vision. But this doesn’t mean the GAFCON proposals can be accepted without
question. The proposed ‘Primates’ Council’ is a strange body, just as the
‘Declaration’ is an odd document which leaves many ambiguities. It gives far
too many hostages to fortune, inviting us to trust an unformed and
unaccountable body to make major decisions and giving licence to all kinds
of unhelpful activities. It isn’t so much that GAFCON should invite people
to sign up to its blank cheque. Rather, GAFCON itself should be invited to
bring its Christian vision and exuberance to the larger party where the rest
of us are working for the same gospel, the same biblical wisdom, the same
Lord.]
Food for thought.....
I read here all this division within the Church. This one is wrong this one is right this one needs to go..or stay etc etc.
Have any of you folks ever stop to consider the following?
(1) God only started ONE church. He did'nt give his church any particular Title nor did he suggest or imply His Church would have very important certain individuals looking like "Holier then thou" or even being elevated to High authority such as a Pope or titles such as "His emminence" or "Right Reverend" certainly not "Father so and so"
Evidence? Job 32 v 21-22 "Let me not I pray you accept any man's person..neither let me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away."
(Also please read; Romans 2 v 11/Matthew 23 v 9-12)
Church Ministers etc?
I Corinthians 12 v 28; "And God hath set some in the Church.First Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly teachers..after that miracles then gifts of healing helps governments diversities of tongues."
V 29-31 also.
God is the one who adds to his church; Acts 2 v 47; "....And God added to the Church daily such as should be saved." (Also Proverbs 1 v 24-29).
This gives you a Biblical view of God's Church and not some Man-made Church.
Next; Why so much division within any church? why the arguments and debates etc?
If a Church (Any Church) simply follows the teachings of Jesus (The church founder) and his hand-picked Original Apostles and leave all the rest alone you would have a God fearing pure Church founded on His doctrines and teachings...My Thoughts..
Posted by: Rick Beekman | 4 Jul 2008 17:53:27
Saint: "We are not talking individual clerics and isolated incidents Malcolm."
Really? So one case of an Episcopal priest claiming to be a Christian and Muslim cocurrently - and that priest IMMEDIATELY suspended by her bishop - proves that such thigs are the norm.
Here is a reality check for you. If such a thig were the norm, it wouldn't have been news. It was newd because it is not the norm.
My point stands. I can point to a handful of bizarre, inappropriate and occasionally criminal behaviour by "conservative" Anglicans. Using what you dubiously pass off as logic, these isolated incidents prove that you and your movement are violent, gay-bashers who steal money, alienate church funds for your own purposes, sexually harass vulnerable people and sexual abuse young children.
I am not prepared to present such an argument because I am, it seems, a trifle more honest than you are.
And David, you know full well what it means. And no, I have no desire to be a bishop. That isn't false humility. Rather my own fallen acquisitiveness. Being a bishop wouldn't pay half as well as my secular employment. (Not to mention the ridiculous hat.)
Posted by: Malcolm+ | 3 Jul 2008 17:27:00
Yes, Malcolm, what is that plus sign after your name"?
Does it mean you consider yourself episcopabile?
Pretentious, toi?
Posted by: David Cohen | 3 Jul 2008 12:53:57
We are not talking individual clerics and isolated incidents Malcolm. You are.
We are talking an entire culture which has bishops supporting muscopalians, hinduclicans and covorting with Khatamis, clerics living in openly adulterous or gay relationships, operates seminaries which specialise in queer theology (how they get queer out of Athanasius, Bonaventure, Aquinas and Julian is beyound me), an organisation which worships the MDGs and determines its theology by polity and judicial fiat, whose PBs openly defy fellow primates ("only the second coming will stop them"), threaten outings on international news channels and deny the uniqueness of Christ.
In the meantime, the pews are emptying at a rate of knots.
I see Hilz is out pretending the Canadians Anglicans are a picture of orthodoxy and health as well. Bwahahahahahahaha!
And you worry about what you THINK goes on in Nigeria while neo-fascist thought police run riot in your own country? Suddenly Nigerian Anglican bishops make the laws in their country but Canadian Anglican bishops don't None of Williams multiple overalapping identity disorders for you ay? ROFL.
Keep you head in the sand Malcolm. Some of us actually agree that you live in a parallel reality of your own projection and that really is only a plus sign after you name.
Posted by: saint | 3 Jul 2008 12:00:02
It is possible - indeed, not difficult at all - to come up with a list of "incidents" of individual clerics with strange ideas.
Where the "conservative" logic breaks down is i claiming that a handful of isolated icidents constitute the normative situation in either of the North American provinces.
I could easily come up with a handful of troubling beliefs / comments / behaviours from pretendy orthodox clerics. It proves that some people have troubling ideas.
Of course, Peter Akinola has been quite open in advocating that anyone who proposes to tolerate homosexuals should be jailed.
The "conservative" contributor Howard Ahmonson has actually argued that homosexuals should be stoned - theough he eventually "moderated" his view, sayig they didn't necessarily have to be stoned, but never condemning the possibility.
Two prominent arch-conservatives of my acquaintance saw their careers collapse in ashes a few years ago when they were discovered to have sexually harasses and sexually abused young men under their pastoral care.
So, using the strange and hatemogering logic of the "conservatives," I could argue that the whole lot of the FOCAs believe in violence against homosexuals and the imprisonment of anyone who advocates tolerating homosexuals. Not to mention that their ranks were rife with serial sexual abusers.
But that, as my old logic prof would note, is arguing from the particular to the general - and would therefore be illogical.
Posted by: Malcolm+ | 2 Jul 2008 21:26:34
Posted by: saint | 2 Jul 2008 19:48:34
Robroy, it is ironic that you accuse me of misrepresenting the facts when you present falsehoods as proof.
The bishop with jurisdiction was Geralyn Wolfe of Rhode Island. She immediately suspended the priest.
That is the fact of the matter and that is what I said.
But then, false witness seems to be the principle weapon of the "conservative" arsenal.
Posted by: Malcolm+ | 2 Jul 2008 17:27:37
On William's sad statement:
"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."
Except that this is not true. There is too much evidence to repeat here that many bishops and clergy in TEC, including its presiding bishop, do not believe this. How does the Archbishop explain his statement? Well, previously, he said that 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." So, apparently, the ABC holds in common the TEC view that words mean whatever one wants them to mean. The statement that all hold the same tenets is true, in this view, because those tenets mean whatever the holder believes. Unfortunately, this is not so much of a defense of orthdoxy as a defense of revisionism. Not such a good thing for the Archbishop to be doing with Lambeth coming up.
The ABC then raises a number of questions about how the new province and primate's council will operate. It is fine to ask questions; I am sure they are working out some of the answers as we write. But it is strange that he continues to ignore the solution, accepted unanimously by the primates at Dar es Salaam. The Jerusalem Declaration does not seem far off that at all. And yet the ABC not only has refused to implement the unanimous plan of the primates from DES, ignored its September 30, 2007 deadline, and ignored the actions of the TEC House of Bishops rejecting DES, he has refused to explain why. Even stranger, the ABC asks "and how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions" when he has repeatedly said, in effect, that there is no power of discipline among provinces of the Anglican Communion at all, and certainly none from his office. Is he merely worried about how Nigeria will work things out with Uganda and Rwanda? Even I can read and see that that is one of the things that the primates council will work out. And I don't think the orthodox are terribly worried over it, though I'm sure they suitably appreciate his concern for them. Or is he just reflecting the TEC view that the only immutable principal of Anglicanism is the involability of geographic borders in the US? Perhaps he can explain.
And, finally, the Archbishop calls for patience. Not a bad thing, but also not something to apply unthinkingly. One also does not want to be the man so scared that he buried his talent. I think the Jerusalem Declaration bishops, clergy and lay people have been very patient.
Of course, the saddest part is the trust squandered by the Archbishop through his actions such as refusing to implement an effective panel of reference ("as a matter of urgency"), his rejection of implementing the primates' decisions at DES, his Lambeth invitations to TEC in further disregard of DES, his tacit support of litigation against the orthodox in the US, and so forth. These have justifiably caused the loss of trust by orthodox bishops and primates in him - not in his office, but in him. He cannot blame anyone else for his decisions. I have seen others defend his decisions on the grounds that he called the primates after DES and the TEC response and they did not all agree how to proceed. But the man who wants to act only with the consensus of the primates is not a man who would make this statement.
Furthermore, this critical statement on the eve of Lambeth is no olive branch to the orthodox, but a slap. Whether intended or not, his statement places him squarely with TEC in how the communion proceeds (particularly when read in conjunction with the TEC presiding bishop's statement on the Jerusalem Declaration, including its reference to the declaration as an "emission", which is pretty much how TEC views Africans in general). This makes any rapproachment with the orthodox at Lambeth less likely. One wonders whether that is what was intended.
Indeed, one wonders whether at Lambeth, TEC and the other revisionist powers that be, disappointed that the Jerusalem bishops would not depart the communion, will actively try to toss them out for their crime of trying to implement DES on their own.
Posted by: pendennis88 | 2 Jul 2008 15:11:44
And yes, what silly questions from the ABC
I thought that in the gospel according to the ABC, we all have multiple overlapping identities and that he gave us the solution to overlapping and competing jurisdictions: a little sharia is good for you.Pity he couldn't remember what the rest of the world thought of that.
Posted by: saint | 2 Jul 2008 14:38:50
The truth Malcolm-plus was that our Muscopalian priest was around for 15 months and supported by the bishop in the diocese in which she served Bishop Vincent Warner of Olympia - indeed her story was first published in the diocese newsletter. She was 'suspended' by the bishop of the diocese in which she was canonically resident - Rhode Island - when the press got the story and it had became an international joke (much as some wanted the story to stay "under the radar") Suddenly Warner wasn't so excited.
Not inclusive enough? Did I forgot the Hindulicans and to apologize for evangelisation?
If you want a litany one can give you a litany. But why do you think most people confuse American and Canadian Episcoplians with Unitarians without even visiting the National Cathedral in Washington?
Crikey, it's no wonder Lambeth isn't doing a Bible study on the "I am"s of the gospel of John. The Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA would choke and the Canadian PB would mount a coup and that might show up that there's no Anglican within cooee who would know the first thing about salvation or defense of the faith (well there might be, but they would be too busy looking for their lost gonads)
Posted by: saint | 2 Jul 2008 14:18:19
Malcolm+ misrepresents the facts (quelLE surprise, indeed): "The truth is that the priest in question, clearly a very troubled and confused woman, was suspended IMMEDIATELY by the bishop with jurisdiction."
No the truth is that the local diocese described the activities of Ms Redding, the islamopalian priest, in the diocesan newspaper as "exciting ecumenically." Only after conservatives investigated, found that the "priest" was canonically resident in Rhode Island under Bp Wolf was she suspended. Jim Naughton, wrote on the listserv "I fervently hope that it will be possible to ignore this story until it slips back beneath the radar."
Posted by: robroy | 2 Jul 2008 13:44:29
Malcolm: Yes, don't worry, Britain is one of the world's most liberal countries on gender, race and sexual orientation issues, thank God. The nutters you read on here are displaying the apoplexy of an impotent dying group. Even young Con Evos who are sitting in the congregations of these officially hard-line churches are generally embarrassed by the increasing dysfunction of their leadership: I predict that there will be a massive turning away from Evangelicalism in England ahead now because of it.
Posted by: Fr Mark | 2 Jul 2008 11:54:30
First, David, I didn't say there were not problems. I said that those problems have been spun into a crisis by the consistent false witness of those who would lie about the state of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.
That includes, Saint, those dishonest folk who would pretend that an isolated incident like the "Muscopalian priest" (nice bigotted term that - quel suprise) represents some sort of norm. The truth (I know you guys hate it when the truth gets in the way of your slanders) is that the priest in question, clearly a very troubled and confused woman, was suspended IMMEDIATELY by the bishop with jurisdiction. But then, why let reality get in the way of your hatremongering, eh?
Finally, the Anglican Church of Canada did not create the Canadian Human Rights Commission, so neither the Church nor I bear any responsibility. But go aherad and use further half-truths and untruths to slander my country. By comparison, I have every confidence that the average Briton is less bigotted than some of those I encounter here.
Posted by: Malcolm+ | 2 Jul 2008 05:22:05
"All Chane has demonstrated by his is that he is a sociopathic horse's ass." - Ruth, I am surprised that you would approve such a comment, but pleased also, because it makes clear to your readers just what hateful, spiteful people many of the so-called "orthodox" really are.
Posted by: JPM | 2 Jul 2008 00:29:25
On the apparently mysterious clergy discipline question, Ruth, I assume +RW is referring among othefrs to the case of Colorado Springs priest Don Armstrong, found guilty by an ecclesiastical court of the misuse of ($400,000 worth, I think, of) church funds, and who avoided discipline by jumping ship to Nigeria, where he was welcomed as someone avoiding persecution by a nasty liberal bishop. (I'm sorry not to have more detail, but think this is broadly correct)
Posted by: Doug Chaplin | 1 Jul 2008 23:29:43
On the acceptance of "clergy disciplined for 'scandalous' behaviour in another jurisdiction", the Archbishop's remarks are puzzling as I am aware of clergy now in holy orders in the Church of England who were disciplined while in another Anglican jurisdiction.
I am not saying that two wrongs make a right, in fact I do believe that reinstatement of Christian leaders is sometimes appropriate. Perhaps RW is referring to something, or someon, else.
Posted by: ChrisM | 1 Jul 2008 13:55:11
There certainly is a problem out there if faith groups want to represent institutionalised homophobia, opt out of human rights legislation or discriminate against women.
Otherwise there is not a problem out there - just a collection of self-interested people arguing about club rules - with nothing particularly relevant and from a position that a a large proportion of society does not overly recognise. The sadness is that these people actually campaign on the promise that they have something important to offer others. The reality is that they spend their entire time pursuing socially divisive policies and arguing about themselves.
It really is time to separate the church from the state, before our children receive an education which might suggest that because of their genetic sexuality some people are more highly valued that others, or that there is a difference in worth between men and women - all apparently sanctioned by God. No other institution would be allowed to get away with it.
Do we really want these dysfunctional, unelected people sitting in our legislature, spending our money and forming part of our schools system?
Posted by: George Parr | 1 Jul 2008 12:43:27
Oh and there you go Malcolm. Why not go and defend a fellow Christian from persecution up there in your neck of the woods?
Posted by: saint | 1 Jul 2008 11:19:21
I see Malcom-plus size is out with his favourite word "slander" again.
Well Malcolm, one could easily make a case - given such visions as Khatami in the National we-are-all-unitarians-now Cathedral, and Muscopalian priests, that there is a (sizeable) contingent in the ECUSA who could be correctly termed, "Islam's useful idiots".
As for the Canadians, well they have their Human Rights Commissions to enforce the Canadian law for useful idiots. You know, like the one that says you can't make a joke about a lesbian.
Posted by: saint | 1 Jul 2008 11:10:49
Alan,
My apologies, I misread your statement. You weren't in fact accusing RW of being Orwellian, only his sidekick.
Therefore, by extension of you being all-knowledgeable, it must be true.
I take it back. Please feel free to call me a racist.
Posted by: J Pearce | 1 Jul 2008 10:19:07
Ah, it's all just a delusion, eh, Malcolm? There's no problem out there. Gafcon never happened. Nobody is upset. We can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
O yes.
Posted by: David Cohen | 1 Jul 2008 09:32:04
Ah, the usual slanders.
First, to the ever-sensitive Mr. Cohen - the Archbishop has never forbidden anyone to meet. If rage-aholic and schismatical primates wish to meet, they can meet. Indeed, they did for the past week.
However, there was no Primates meeting scheduled at that point a few months ogo when the same band of rage-aholic schismatics demanded that he hold an emergency meeting. He declined to be bullied by their ragings. Good on em.
To compare that to Mugabe's antics in Zimbabwe simply demonstrates how far some of your "conservatives" are removed from reality.
Then Dr, Marsh offers up some more of the "scandalous boilerplate" about the mass persecution of Episcopal conservatives. Completely devoid of factual basis, mind you.
Finally we have another David, this time Crawford, offering up some delusional conspiracy theory about the Episcopal Church's ties to radical Islam.
I can only conclude that many of our problems would be lessened - if not resolved - were some of the "conservatives" simply went back on their meds.
Posted by: Malcolm+ | 1 Jul 2008 07:35:11
I think the ABC's protestations about reforming the inadequate structures of the communion would have had more credence if there was any sign of progress towards such a reform in the five years since 2003, and in particular if he had not allowed the structure of the forthcoming Lambeth conference to develop with clear primary objective of ensuring that effective decision making was impossible.
GAFCON would not have needed to take this path had there been another path in sight.
Posted by: Margaret | 1 Jul 2008 04:46:35
It offers a blank cheque to anyone
What puzzles me is how anyone can fail to see the leadership of ECUSA for what it is. They are deviating so far beyond the broad parameters of Anglicanism (and they use the 'broadness' concept to justify their actions) that when you hear the leader of ECUSA proclaim to all and sundry that Jesus is but one way of many to God, and that His way has to be put alongside the claims of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Animism, etc., how can an orthodox Anglican fail to react. Orthodox anglicans have been sadly passive in the face of people like Spong and Pike in the past quarter century. That passivity is now understood and deeply regretted. How can those of orthodox traditional Anglican belief now fail to react. How can they remain within the Episcopal Church when its liberal revisionism has gone so far that there are essentially two hugely different churches within the umbrella of ECUSA. How can those people remain within a church that has gone so far adrift. The position of the Episcopal church is one that has made little effort to accommodate the orthodox.that says, "Go" with equanimity; that is fed up with their resistance to their liberal drift. The only thing they are concerned about is holding on to their property,, this in a church that is bleeding off ten two twenty thousand parishioners a year at the minimum, this in a church that would rather have buildings that stand empty, that are for sale to anyone but a departing congregation. Why on earth should there not be two provinces in the U.S. One, Reasserters believe, will bleed more and more as it deviates farther from the Faith, and attempts to redefine Anglicanism and indeed Christianity, the other the polar opposite. The two so far divided that their has developed less and less commonality in doctrine, authority, and morality.
These following words of Chanes' are far from the reality of what he believes. His words may be the same but they have nothing in common with traditional Anglican Faith:
""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."
The meaning of the above words are certainly in dispute in the common life of the Episcopal Church.
"This slanderous bit of boilerplate has been repeated frequently by the opponents of the Episcopal Church, and it is heartening to know that the archbishop realizes that it false."
That he sees the orthodox traditional Christians as 'opponents' speaks volumes about his perspective.
Posted by: Bill Channon | 1 Jul 2008 01:31:05
John Chane needs to read Time magazine to see the heresy of his presiding bishop: "We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box."
She clarified it in an NPR interview: "Christians understand that Jesus is the route to God. Umm-- that is not to say that Muslims, or Sikhs, or Jains, come to God in a radically different way. They come to God through... human experience... through human experience of the divine. Christians talk about that in terms of Jesus."
So no slander, Mr. Chane.
Posted by: robroy | 1 Jul 2008 00:55:01
"And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?"
And we had such effective discipline when there weren't overlapping jurisdictions??? And it was RW, himself, that gave tacit approval to overlapping jurisdictions when he extended an invitation to the interloper Lamb of the "Episcopal dioscese of San Joaquin" who was "elected" under such questionable circumstances.
Posted by: robroy | 1 Jul 2008 00:46:40
Cantuar slams Gafcon - how feeble is that?
The ABC will have to do better than this response. He has everything to play for. Criticising something in embryo form is not the way to go - it is a negative response. If he wants to retain the orthodox he and Lambeth need to take positive steps to meet their concerns.
At some stage the talking has to stop, judgments need to be made and actions taken. In the failure to follow the required script people tend to take matters into their hands, as is the case with Gafcon.
Dr Wright says (pardon me but to a colonial, Cantuar and Dunelm sound just oh so pretentious):
“GAFCON itself needs to bring its rich experience and gospel-driven exuberance to the larger party where the rest of us are working day and night for the same gospel, the same biblical wisdom, the same Lord.”
Surely this misses the point. Everyone no doubt is “working day and night”, but it is by no means certain that it is for “the same gospel, the same Lord”. Gafcon only exists because of the actions of the ACC/TEC. So long as Drs Williams and Wright do not take action to discipline but rather embrace ACC/TEC, Wright’s words are meaningless.
Basically, they have blown it.
I do agree Gafcon have a tough road ahead – someone (Jensen?) has got put in enormous effort to pull the thing together. Multiple tinpot, mishmash American jurisdictions over-endowered with Bishops and Archbishops will be quite a challenge.
Posted by: David Palmer | 1 Jul 2008 00:23:17
The GAFCONITES use the term orthodox very freely and to suit their own purposes.
For instance the Archbishop of Sydney believes that the ordination to the presbyerate for women is unbiblical and unorthodox...yet he regard the Rwandan, Ugandan and Kenyan Churches as orthodox...these churches were pioneers in womens ordination.
To keep the 17 million Anglicans of these provinces on board the good ship GAFCON, the issue of womens ordination was not even mentioned. When the presiding bishop of TEC was criticised , it was for her liberal theology and not her gender.
Surely orthodoxy is like virginity...you are either one or not...there are no lesser degrees.
Yet those who disagree with womens ordination can still embrace their pro -women ordination brother bishops as orthodox!
Some people are orthodox, but some are more orthodox than others!
Gafcon particiapants cannot agree as to meaning of words of Christ on re-marraige and divorce...so this was not even mentioned in either the hand book or the declaration. ironic that the handbook called " The Way , the ruth and the life " had nothing to say about Christ's teaching on marriage.
Casual divorce was criticised but not Divorce per se.
It seems when there is theological difference , "we do not mention it."
How long this silence will last in FOCA will be interesting to watch...as well as the Anglo-Catholic participants who subscribe to the Declaration and its affirmation of the authority of the 39 articles and yet ignore its injunctions,such as continuing to reserve and worship the consecrated communion elements.
Posted by: Robert Ian Williams | 30 Jun 2008 23:56:05
You forgot another one Ruth.
I think the standard response to this one is "holy cow"!
Posted by: saint | 30 Jun 2008 23:12:18
And Williams whimpers: couldn't you all just wait for me to wake up to how pissed off you all are? Can't you hear MY pain?
ROFL.
My best mate is Welsh. He sometimes jokes that nothing much came out of the Welsh revival except a few good hymns. Seems like nothing much will come from the onetime Bishop of Wales except a few good poems.
Posted by: saint | 30 Jun 2008 22:55:29
Sad, isn't it? Here we are, watching a slightly less historical and slightly less edifying re-run of the Reformation, and what actually is happening?
Yet more Chrstian sects are being created! So much for One True Church of God! JC is now the Lord Of A Million Churches. The paperwork alone must be doing his head in.
Christianity is becoming a joke. How can any Christian turn around and claim to be "Godly" when they spend most of their time back-biting, whinging, plotting and acting like a bunch of primary school kids. And thats just the liberals!
All those affiliating with Gafcon are attaching themselves to a bunch of third world medievalists who wouldn't know what the Reformation meant if they were hit round the head with it. Primitive? Barely covers it. Quasi-fascist? Thats more like it.
And in the middle, we have RW, a man who as at least partially wafted the fog of pointless and meaningless organisational doctrine, glimpsed reality for what it really is, exercised his God-given free will and has at least tried to educate the dullards with their heads up their own literalist jacksies. And still he gets vilified for it!
I mean, he's got Dr Alan "I'm intellectually superior, don't you know" Marsh calling him "Orwellian". I mean, come on - Rowan Williams as the head of some sinister thought-controlling network of enforcers? It takes him three days to explain how to open an envelope! What medicine are you on, Alan?
This embarrasing and wholly pointless exercise in muscle flexing is nothing to do with relating to "God" or any such matters. It is entirely about jostling for position at the top of the organisational tree. And it reveals the truth about the Church - nothing whatsoever to do with spirituality and everything to do with self-preservation and self-loathing.
Posted by: J Pearce | 30 Jun 2008 22:23:08
So, David, sort of emphasises that the CofE aren't going to be FOCAed, yes?
Posted by: Dr. Mike Homfray | 30 Jun 2008 22:04:37
Posted by: saint | 30 Jun 2008 21:42:41
All Dr. Williams has accomplished by this statement is to convincingly demonstrate that he lives in an alternate reality. All Chane has demonstrated by his is that he is a sociopathic horse's ass. John, you had Iran's former president Khatami to the NatCat a while back. Iran, a place where they EXECUTE homosexuals. And have you gotten around to condemning sharia law in northern Nigeria yet?
Posted by: Christopher Johnson | 30 Jun 2008 21:12:27
How can the ABofC expect to be taken seriously, when he's given silent approbation to the banning of Christ's teachings from the church?
Posted by: Jenny | 30 Jun 2008 20:55:19
From Bishop Chane's comment "I am particularly grateful to hear him say that "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"
The Diocese of Washington is having
Brian McLaren lead an evangelism conference soon (and apparently he is also going to be teaching at the Lambeth conference!)
http://www.edow.org/news/window/2008/april/stewardship.html
So what's wrong with Brian Mclaren?
Have a read.
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/Brian%20McLaren%20Removed%20From%20Evangelism%20Convention.htm
And from his website:
http://www.brianmclaren.net/emc/archives/McLaren%20-%20John%2014.6.pdf
What is comes down to is that many in the communion regard this as heresy. Evidently Chane does not. I have no idea where the ABC stands, but the fact that Chane is invited to Lambeth and he is allowing McLaren to present this material to the bishops would suggest he views it as an authentic expression of Christianity. Most in the communion would view this as heresy.
So thats the problem in the Anglican Communion - Lambeth now represents the left, but with the erosion of the church in the West with years of promoting this false gospel, the numbers are now in the South and East who have stuck with the traditional gospel. Yet Lambeth still holds all the power?
You will know them by their fruits. The western gospel is false, their churches are dying. The Southern gospel is bearing fruit, their growth is explosive, they have the real gospel. Lambeth has to cede power to where the numbers are.
Posted by: anon | 30 Jun 2008 20:42:45
Bishop Chane is a fine example of the problem facing the Anglican Communion. He talks about Gay rights and full inclusion. A Muslim gay friend of mine was outraged that on his recent trip to Iran, Chane did not have one word to say to them about gay rights. In fact have you ever heard anyone in TEC or the COE on the liberal side attack the Muslim position on homosexuality ? They would rather not discuss the fact that the Koran forbids exactly what the Bible does. They don't speak up because of one word - FEAR. Christ said to go make disciples of all nations. To find God is to find Jesus. In TEC we find Jesus as one of many paths and we worship many ways, which lead us always to the wide road and many truth's.
Posted by: David Crawford | 30 Jun 2008 20:32:11
"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."
Except in the USA, whose General Convention refuses to vote for such a proposition - and the Church of England, whose Synod has been forbidden even to discuss it!
Posted by: David Cohen | 30 Jun 2008 19:34:43
I think that what GAFCON/FOCA have done is to set up a new church whilst trying to pretend they remain in the old one - a sort of putsch.
Thing is, they can't, because Anglican, as its name suggests, is simply churches which choose to relate and be in communion with the Church led from Canterbury
It is clear enough that they have no desire to do this, thus whatever they set up will by definition not be the Anglican Church.
I can't actually see all that many CofE churches heading FOCA-wards other than the usual suspects, and a bishop or three, all of whom most sane people would be delighted to see depart.
Posted by: Dr. Mike Homfray | 30 Jun 2008 19:16:51
"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."
So this means the Synod's going to vote on that private member motion about the uniqueness of Christ?
Right? Right?
Posted by: NBS | 30 Jun 2008 19:13:56
The comments by John Chane are rather telling. As one of the foremost leaders of TEC's revisionist avant-garde, he has become locked into an Orwellian mindset which turns all meaning on its head, and regards efforts to support a beleaguered minority as somehow "punishing" those who are pushing the revisionist agenda.
One must recognise how closely Dr Williams has identified himself with TEC's "affirming catholic" theology in the course of the last decade. He was one of its architects, along with former PB Frank Griswold, and the former Bishop of Edinburgh, whose church is also now captive to the trends set by TEC.
The Abp has ensured that many of his fellow travellers have been put into positions of influence in the Church of England, although not representative of the main rank and file of church members. He has publicly supported campaigning organisations such as LGCM both in person and in print. He has spent far too much time in private sessions with Bp Griswold and others whose revisionism he espouses, however concealed behind the mask of office.
It is little wonder that he has not been able to carry the whole Anglican Communion with him, given his stated theology and aspirations, and his willingness to divert decision-making into discussion-making.
Those who assemble for the Lambeth Conference will represent just 30% of the world's Anglicans, and anything they say will have to be viewed in that light, if they are able to say anything meaningful or useful when confined to small talking groups and "training" sessions.
The tide of history is now with the majority of Anglicans, not attending Lambeth, no longer in communion with Bp Chane and no longer bound by any recognition of Dr Williams as anything more than Archbishop of a province in England.
It is tragic that it has come to this, but the failure of the very mechanisms which were supposed to keep the Communion together, notably its historic links with Canterbury, became inevitable when the decision was taken by Lambeth to allow matters to drift, rather than to act.
Posted by: Dr Alan Marsh | 30 Jun 2008 19:11:13
I for one am pleased that the Archbishop has responded so quickly to the Gafcon document, and has done so very effectively. He has pointed out, in a gentle but clear way, that these rogue bishops and Archbishops (many not even being part of the Communion) do not have the authority to act in the way they are threatening to act, and some have already acted (a sort of reverse colonialism). It is evident that many of these Gafcon bishops are empire building, trying to create a sort of Anglican equivalent to the Avignon Papacy. As an Episcopalian clergy person in the U.S.A. I would never want Communion broken with Canterbury and especially not to be in this rump group. As a Catholic Church, Anglicanism must certainly look to Canterbury. It is appalling that Gafcon has been so dismissive of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Their blustering is unbelievable. I, as an Anglican, am personally insulted by their continued attacks on Bishop Williams, and take many of their comments as an affront. Wait until homosexuality no longer titillates them and they begin to discuss the issues of women's ordination, of authority and personal conscience, BCPs and liturgies, Anglo-Catholicism and protestant evangelicalism, and a myriad of other things, they will be at each others throats. I remind you, the phrase "Church within a Church" was used years ago, and came to nothing. Bishop of London, Graham Leonard, tried the same things, and said the same things, with some of these same American bishops, to no avail (think of the Church he brought under his "protection" in
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma --St. Michael's). Where were these chest beaters then? To play on an earlier post of Ms Gledhill's, this is merely a schism within a schism.
Posted by: Fr. Van Windsor | 30 Jun 2008 19:10:45
It is all too easy to blame the Archbishop for the whole sorry mess. He's not the Pope.
The Anglican Communion is unleadable and no one else could have done better than ++Rowan
Posted by: Fr David Heron | 30 Jun 2008 18:47:27
Of course not one mention of TEC causing this issue by promising not to bless gay unions and then blessing them. They agreed to no more gay bishops then put one on the ballot.All Williams is doing is to further talk a dead horse to death. There is no trust because TEC has over the years lied and agreed to issues they had no intention of keeping. The majority of us have had it and Rowans plea to keep talking and talking and talking have come to an end. It is time for him to lead,lead,lead.At least Gafcon has thought the issues out and is willing to act. I am an Anglican but a Christian first. Rowan Williams does nothing for me !!!
Posted by: David Crawford | 30 Jun 2008 18:06:09
I would ask His Grace just one question (since he always likes to ask questions rather than give answers):
By what authority is his Primacy deemed acceptable?
The only authority there can be, since he is unaccountable to anyone and unlected by any church or province, is to demonstrate that he is providing the kind of leadership needed by the Anglican Communion.
Two-thirds of the Communion, represented by its primates who ARE elected, finds his leadership gravely deficient, both theologically and practically. Not only does he fail to heed what the Primates are saying (he now refuses to allow them to meet, Zimbabwe-style) but is on record as approving the very innovations which are wrecking the Anglican Communion. He has done nothing to dispel the impression that he wishes those innovations to be implemented everywhere.
"Just wait and see" is a message which fast loses its credibility. It has now been repeated far too many times. And in Jerusalem the Anglican world has moved on.
Next week, His Grace faces a further test of his leadership. It is known that he wants women to be bishops in the Church of England. Will be allow this issue to spilt the Church, in the same month as the Communion was divided?
It will require a considerable exercise of statesmanship if he is to lead the Church of England through the mess which his failure to lead hitherto has created. Sadly there is no evidence to date that he is capable of that kind of vision or leadership, and we must wait to see if something remarkable occurs at the General Synod in York.
Posted by: David Cohen | 30 Jun 2008 17:58:13