Lambeth Diary: Boycotting primates hit back

Gafcon statement on Rowan Williams just in: 'Many are contending for and proclaiming the orthodox faith throughout the Anglican Communion. Their efforts are, however, undermined by those who are clearly pursuing a false gospel. We are not claiming to be a sinless church. Our concern is with false teaching which justifies sin in the name of Christianity. These are not merely matters of different perspectives and emphases. They have led to unbiblical practice in faith and morals, resulting in impaired and broken communion.  We long for all orthodox Anglicans to join in resisting this development.' See our story today on how the Archbishop of Canterbury is doing better than many imagine. The story is being updated for later editions to include reference to the Gafcon statement, produced in full below, along with the seven Primates' damning critique of the Covenant process. Akinola is leading the charge.

GAFCON responds to the Archbishop of Canterbury

The Global Anglican Future Conference gathered leaders from around the Anglican Communion for pilgrimage, prayer and serious theological reflection.  We are grateful to the Archbishop of Canterbury for engaging with the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration.  We wish to respond to some of his concerns.

On faith and false teaching. We warmly welcome the Archbishop's affirmation of the Jerusalem Statement as positive and encouraging and in particular that it would be shared by the vast majority of Anglicans. We are however concerned that he should think we assume that all those outside GAFCON are proclaiming another gospel. In no way do we believe that we are the only ones to hold a correct interpretation of scripture according to its plain meaning. We believe we are holding true to the faith once delivered to the saints as it has been received in the Anglican tradition. Many are contending for and proclaiming the orthodox faith throughout the Anglican Communion. Their efforts are, however, undermined by those who are clearly pursuing a false gospel. We are not claiming to be a sinless church. Our concern is with false teaching which justifies sin in the name of Christianity. These are not merely matters of different perspectives and emphases. They have led to unbiblical practice in faith and morals, resulting in impaired and broken communion.  We long for all orthodox Anglicans to join in resisting this development.

On the uniqueness of Christ. We are equally concerned to hear that 'the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God' is 'not in dispute' in the Anglican Communion.  Leading bishops in The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and even the Church of England have denied the need to evangelise among people of other faiths, promoted and attended syncretistic events and, in some cases, refused to call Jesus Lord and Saviour.

On legitimacy. In the current disorder in the Communion, GAFCON came together as a gathering of lay leaders, clergy and bishops from over 25 countries on the basis of their confession of the common historic Christian faith. They formed a Council in obedience to the word of God to defend the faith and the faithful who are at risk in some Anglican dioceses and congregations.
GAFCON, where the governing structures of many provinces were present, affirmed such a Council of the GAFCON movement as its body to authenticate and recognise confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and congregations and to encourage all Anglicans to promote the gospel and defend the faith.

In their primates and other bishops, the assembly saw a visible connection to the catholic and apostolic Church and the evangelical and catholic faith which many have received from the Church of England and the historic see of Canterbury. It is this faith which we seek to affirm.

On authority. As the Virginia Report notes, in the Anglican tradition, authority is not concentrated in a single centre, but rather across a number of persons and bodies. This Council is a first step towards bringing greater order to the Communion, both for the sake of bringing long overdue discipline and as a reforming initiative for our institutions.

Whilst we respect territoriality, it cannot be absolute. For missionary and pastoral reasons there have long been overlapping jurisdictions in Anglicanism itself – historically in South Africa, New Zealand, the Gulf and Europe. In situations of false teaching, moreover, it has sometimes been necessary for other bishops to intervene to uphold apostolic faith and order.

On discipline. Finally, with regard to the Archbishop's concern about people who have been disciplined in one jurisdiction and have been accepted in another, we are clear that any such cases have been investigated thoroughly and openly with the fullest possible transparency. Bishops and parishes have been given oversight only after the overseeing bishops have been fully satisfied of no moral impediments to their action.

We enclose a response to the St Andrew's Draft Covenant. (See separate post).

We assure the Archbishop of Canterbury of our respect as the occupier of an historic see which has been used by God to the benefit of his church and continue to pray for him to be given wisdom and discernment.

Signed

The Most Rev Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria
The Most Rev Justice Akrofi, Primate of West Africa
The Most Rev Emmanuel Kolini, Primate of Rwanda
The Most Rev Valentine Mokiwa, Primate of Tanzania
The Most Rev Benjamin Nzmibi, Primate of Kenya
The Most Rev Henry Orombi, Primate of Uganda
The Most Rev Gregory Venables, Primate of The Southern Cone

Issued by the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) 2008

Press Release

For Immediate Release

18 July 2008

'The St Andrews Draft is the latest revision of An Anglican Covenant as proposed by the Windsor Report. It replaces, and significantly modifies the previous draft known as the Nassau Draft. The Theological Resource Group at GAFCON reviewed this latest draft and its suitability as an instrument to deal with the divisions within the Communion and the issues which had generated them.'

A RESPONSE

of the GAFCON Theological Resource Team to the St Andrews Draft Text of An Anglican Covenant

Introduction
The idea of a Covenant as a way out of the difficulties in which the Anglican Communion finds itself has been proposed in several quarters. The St Andrews Draft Text of An Anglican Covenant is one such attempt. The GAFCON Theological Resource Team reviewed the St Andrews Draft Text during pre-conference preparations in Jerusalem on 20th and 21st June 2008.

An Anglican Covenant was intended as a response to a crisis in the Anglican Communion which has been accurately described as 'a rending of the Communion at the deepest level'. Determined departures from the teaching of Scripture on human sexuality by The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada are the immediate cause this situation. There appears no prospect of repentance from this repudiation of biblical authority on the part of either of these bodies (or from those elsewhere who have followed their lead in endorsing behaviour which Scripture explicitly forbids). Underlying these actions is a long history of marginalising, avoiding and at last rejecting the plain teaching of the Bible. In other words, the issue which we should expect this covenant to address is one of apostasy.

Many attempts have been made to address the breach of relationships caused by the setting aside of biblical teaching by some provinces, dioceses, and individual bishops, beginning at Kuala Lumpur in 1997, at the Lambeth Conference in 1998, and culminating recently, after consistent efforts in the intervening years, in the Primates' Meeting in Dar es Salaam in 2007.

Sadly this new draft of An Anglican Covenant is both seriously limited and severely flawed. Whether or not the tool of covenant is the right way to approach the crisis within the Communion, this document is defective and its defects cannot be corrected by piecemeal amendment because they are fundamental. The St. Andrews Draft is theologically incoherent and its proposals unworkable. It has no prospect of success since it fails to address the problems which have created the crisis and the new realities which have ensued.

This document falls in effect into two parts. Sections 1 and 2 mention some matters of faith, but section 3 is in fact the critical section of the document, because this introduces the thought of Churches as being 'autonomous-in-communion'. It is on this concept that the proposed resolution of Communion disputes rests.

Our response will confine itself to seven areas of theological concern and will briefly mention two other significant issues in its conclusion.

Serious Theological Flaws
1. A failure to address the issue

Any covenant document has to recognise fully the mischief it seeks to address. This document makes no mention of the crisis which has generated the call for such a remedy, which is a crisis of obedience to Scripture. Further, it fails to recognise that in the eyes of many the 'instruments of Communion' (3.1.4) are themselves part of the problem. This means that trying to use such failed instruments as arbiters of a future solution is problematic in the extreme. Put bluntly, this covenant will not allow the real issues to be addressed.

2. An illegitimate notion of autonomy

The understanding of the individual Churches of the Communion throughout this document is fatally ambiguous. The language of autonomy in communion is introduced in 3.1.2., but there has been no justification produced for this concept in the preceding sections. More seriously this language is unqualified and so fails to distinguish between matters on which Scripture is silent (and where there may be legitimate liberty and indeed diversity) and matters on which Scripture has spoken definitively (and where autonomy is therefore a euphemism for sin). Our obedience to Scripture and our responsibility to each other must significantly qualify all talk of 'autonomy' with reference to any congregation, diocese, province or, indeed, the Communion itself.

3. No biblical theology

The entire document, and particularly the statement concerning 'the inheritance of faith' in paragraph 1, is detached from the Scriptural narrative of salvation and redemption from sin, which Churches in the Communion have seen realised. The principal concerns of Scripture are ignored as the document concentrates on matters which are dependent and consequential upon those concerns. The unity of Christians flows out of the redeeming work of Christ and the incorporative ministry of the Spirit. Any attempt to generate or sustain such unity on our own terms and by our own institutional efforts without reference to this prior and determinative reality must be judged sub-biblical.

4. A faulty anthropology

An Anglican Covenant is primarily concerned with the doctrine of the church. However, any doctrine of the church presupposes a doctrine of humanity. The anthropology implicit in this document fails to capture the reality of any Christian's life in this world as this is explained by Scripture. Christians are those who are redeemed by Christ but who remain sinful until God's purposes are brought to their completion when Christ returns. This twofold reality has very significant implications for the life of the church. The reality of temptation and sin, a reality experienced by all no matter what their office in the church, needs to be taken seriously.

5. An absent eschatology

This document fails to adopt an appropriately biblical eschatological perspective. Its preoccupation with institutional processes is at the expense of a proper sense of our corporate and individual accountability to God on the Last Day for proper custodianship of the deposit of Faith. There is no reference to sin, judgement, 'the coming wrath' or to God's provision of a remedy in the cross of Christ and the forgiveness of sins which attends faith and repentance.

6. Neglect of obedience

Throughout this document an attenuated view of biblical authority is presented. A critical element of the Christian response to God and his Word is missing. The Church is called not merely to treat God's Word respectfully (1.2.4.), but to obey it. The absence of the language of obedience to the Word of God throughout the document is one of its most serious flaws.

7. An isolated and vacuous appeal to unity

Throughout An Anglican Covenant, biblical values are not treated in their mutual relationship. In particular the biblical injunctions to unity are in effect disconnected from the equally serious injunctions of Scripture to preserve the truth given to us. Paragraph 3.2 deals almost exclusively with perceived threats to the unity of the Communion rather than moral and doctrinal error, once again ignoring that our current disunity is the result of departures from the truth taught in Scripture in both of these areas.

Conclusion
Given the profound and fatal difficulties identified in the draft covenant, the legal framework of the appendix will likewise be open to overwhelming objection. The proposed legal framework in any event exhibits the same flaws as the parent document, notably in the way unity is abstracted from biblical faithfulness and no account is taken of the possibility that the instruments of Communion themselves might be the focus of objection. Two other objections must be mentioned. First, the document describes four instruments of Communion, which it proposes will provide solutions to disputes. It fails to recognise the disproportionate influence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who invites to the Lambeth Conference, chairs the ACC and calls the Primates' Meeting. The problem of this undue influence is compounded by the lack of formal accountability on the part of the Archbishop and the prominence the document envisages for this Primate is frankly colonialist. Secondly, the prominence given to the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and Primates raises problems in increasing further the ability of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ACC to exercise disproportionate influence over the Primates, thereby tending in effect to silence dissentient primatial voices.

In the light of these considerations we find ourselves unable to endorse the St Andrews Draft of An Anglican Covenant.

Comments

[David Conroy, Venezuela]

Sir: Well done GAFCON !. The existence and independence of the historic Anglican Church was recognised in the English Magna Carta of 1215, and confirmed by several English monarchs (Henry VIII did not FOUND the CofE but merely guaranteed its freedom from ultramontane administrative meddling). Its Kalender demonstrates quite clearly that it is not a homophobic, misogynist or racist institution. Deaconesses and religious communities for ladies are evidence of its acceptance of women in its mission and in its practices. The ordination of women as priestesses and/or as "bishops" is contrary to the Canon Law of the Eastern and the Western Churches and, therefore, quite invalid in its concept. The liberals from the "lunatic fringe" who propose to introduce changes to these historic practices should form an organisation of their own, for which a suitable title might be the "Can Can Church" (i.e. you CAN do anything which takes your fancy, you CAN dress up or defrock at a given moment, preferably with a musical background and in the presence of paying onlookers etc.). Dr. Williams may be right about one thing: certain Muslim practices could conveniently be introduced to remove or render inoperable any modus operandi of those candidates who might yield to physical "temptation". Bacteria (as primitive plants) and certain ciliate protozoans (as primitive animals) reproduce by binary fission; flatworms are hermaphrodite and preandrous in their reproduction. Since the mores of the "aspirants" could not lead to propagation of their sub-species, from an anatomical and a physiological viewpoint, they are doomed to eventual extinction as "players" (or "mummers" if you prefer). Mother Nature will be the final judge of the senseless and baseless "political correctness" which is being practised by many who are attending the current Lambeth Conference, and the traditional Anglican Church will survive of there are Bishops, Priests and Laity capable and prepared to act in its defence. I write as a University Professor with a doctorate and other senior academic/professional qualifications in the biological sciences, and as a worried practising Anglican. Yours faithfully.

[Colonel Bain]

Hummmm..* itch'n chin*
Down right interest'n read'n! Gotta pass this to de Native American grammas headed to Rome!
Giddup..Slow Light'n

[robroy]

"Further, it fails to recognise that in the eyes of many the 'instruments of Communion' (3.1.4) are themselves part of the problem. This means that trying to use such failed instruments as arbiters of a future solution is problematic in the extreme."

Absolutely true. Thinking Anglicans had published a "flow diagram" of the dispute resolution process. Hopelessly unworkable. And the ultimate arbiter...the old ditherer, himself.

[Lisa Fox]

Obviously, Akinola and his compadres realize they are losing. Martyn Minns made it clear that he was going to be near Kent during this conference.

I hear this as a desperate hissing from the dying portion of the Anglican Communion. They just can't stand the fact that the Anglican bishops are getting on with the business of the church.

[David Keen]

++Rowan did Gafcon the courtesy of staying quiet whilst they had their own conference, they should return the favour. They can't expect a proper debate on this whilst Lambeth is going on, though maybe that's the idea. Then they can claim that Williams isn't engaging with the issues.

It's ironic that a 'disproportionate influence' is claimed for the ABC when some of the signatories have enforced a 3 line whip on their own bishops, who wanted to go to Lambeth but felt under pressure not to.

[magistra]

I've just come across this in an earlier post of yours. "Archbishop Akinola... stressed that liberty was important for Africa and that he could not allow anyone to tell his community what to do and to say." (This is when he was being asked not to hold GAFCON in Jerusalem).

I don't see how he can reconcile this attitude with his view that he can tell the American church what to do.

[Charles in California]

it's clear that the incredible shrinking Anglican Communion is forever riven by the self-indulgent narcissism of Rev. Robinson in New Hampshire and various women bishops, to boot. And let's not forget the ultra-liberal Rev. Spong of Newark, NJ, and his homosexual-marrying underlings there.
The San Joaquin Diocese here has seceded from ECUSA, and no telling how many of that Hispanic region have joined the Catholic Church, but i will bet it is several hundred of them.

[Michaela]

GAFCON and the new Primates council is the only hope for Christian Anglicans that still believe that the Bible is the Living Word of God; God is to be obeyed; The creeds state the Christian faith; and Most important Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and is the only Way, the only Truth, and the only Life to salvation. He WILL come again and judge those who do not believe this. It is a reality that Schori and her company deny, but it will happen either in the future or when an individual dies.

Heaven or hell and once the judgment is made there will be no negogiation and no excuses. it will be an eternal reality. People can deny it all they want to, but it will happen because God said it will. Some are going to be surprised when they die. It is sad to think about it. Man/woman is not in charge. God is.

God has declared homosexual practices and behaviors a sin and he isn't going to change it. Not the person...the acts and lifestyle.And he will be the judge, prosecutor, and jury. Man can not change what God has declared.

These people GAFCON represents 33 million anglicans which is more than the CoE and TEC and CoC together. Jesus only is the Lord. TEC is heretical because it teaches a false gospel. It comprises only 800,000 anglicans although it says it has 2 mil. it doesn't. if the ABC doesn't believe then it is his problem and his future. I hope he does. I hope and pray he has not prostituded the Anglican communion to Schori and the American apostates. Money and sex.

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

Dear me, the conservatives are getting agitated , aren't they?

Why don't they just toddle off like the slimy little bigots they are and set up their own church where they can hate and spread fairytale poison to their hearts content?

Revealed truth - oh yeah, as if that exists? Grow up and accept that all you have is your personal opinion, no matter how much you whine on about 'truth'

[Charles in California]

if he really is a "doctor" it should be easy to Doc Homfray to refute or unmask the etiology of the many miraculous medical cures are Lourdes, France, since February 1858. just that one site, none of the hundreds of other verified miracles at other places and times, and many miracles vetted by attending physicians, no less.
whaddya say, Doc?

[badman]

It turns out that GAFCON's critique of the St Andrew's draft Covenant for backsliding on the St Nassau draft was actually based, not on the St Nassau draft Covenant, but on a totally different document prepared by the leading lights of the GAFCON movement themselves in 2004.

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/forum/thread.cfm?thread=7847

Greg Venables has disassociated himself from the GAFCON latest, saying that he never saw it, and also appears a bit shaken to discover that "actions have consequences" and he is experiencing a lack of warmth amongst his fellow bishops at Lambeth.

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/blog_post.asp?id=60572

[Christopher]

Charles in Calif refers to "the etiology of the many miraculous medical cures are Lourdes". Actually I think the Church officially recognises 67 miracles there, so that means among the hundreds of thousands of pilgrims visiting Lourdes every the year since Bernadette Subirous had her visions in 1858. It is estimated at 200 million pilgrims overall, so the number 67 is statistically neglibible as a scientific proof of anything supernatural going on there.

Have a look at http://hokum-balderdash.blogspot.com/2008/02/incredible-dearth-of-miracle-healings.html for the maths:

"If we now take this as the definitive number of miracles, the success rate of Lourdes is in fact 67 / 2,000,000 = 0.00335%. In other words Lourdes has a failure rate of 99.996665%. (I didn't even dare round it off to 2 decimal places!)"

[Malcolm+]

As noted, Greg Venables has confirmed that he did not agree to the latest GAFFEPRONE poisoned pen letter.

I wonder how many of the other signatures are similarly appended without permission.

This does seem to be a recurring problem with Dr. Akinola and his anamneusis Dr. Minns.

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

I always find it interesting how those experiencing miracles at Lourdes and who see visions of the Virgin Mary are inevitably Catholics. Those who experience charismatic healings are Charismatics. And so on.

There is actually no clear and unequivocal medical evidence for any of these. I rather wish there was. A good friend of mine - evangelical, charismatic through and through, died recently of a brain tumour. He must have been prayed for thousands of time, received healing ministry and so on. But he died. We all will. And believing in hocus-pocus doesn't make it so.

[Charles in California]

Alphonse Ratisbonne had a vision in Rome and converted from a Jewish banker to A Catholic missionary, started an order of priests, and his brother also converted. Only those cures pushed by hometown Bishops are recognized,, and it takes years. So the maths work done above is irrelevant. Many people do not bother, they feel it is self-aggrandizing to do so. Read The Miracle Detective (2002) by a former Rolling Stone journalist, author, and agnostic. Neither of the posts above offer a convincing refutation.

[Charles in California]

Doc Mike,

your friend may have led such a life that no amount of prayers could lead to a spontaneous remission for him. many are called, but few are chosen. if only wishing would make it so! Read about Zeitoun in 1968, and Medjugorje since 1981, not to mention Fatima and the fulfillment of the near-term prophecies there from 1917 - 1920.

[Charles in California]

Jacob Rudder visited the Lourdes sister shrine in Oostacker, Belgium, near Ghent, on crutches, after years of disability. His wife was with him. His leg had been shattered years before. He was miraculously cured on the spot, after praying. His two femurs are now on the wall of the church there, with the shattered femur, fused and healed of all its abscesses and fistulas, in full contrast to the non-injured femur. you could google it. Explain that away, Doc.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Why do some people need crutches, Dr Homfray? To enable them to walk and move about? Take a look at the literally hundreds upon hundreds of crutches discarded by pilgrims at Lourdes. They all walked away from the shrine unaided after years of distress. Not just 67, hundreds and hundreds.

[Charles in California]

Peter de Rudder.

De Rudder was a Belgian farm laborer whose left leg was shattered in 1867 by the fall of a tree. Seven years passed and the bones had not united. De Rudder's doctors advised amputation but De Rudder determined to ask our Lady of Lourdes, venerated at the shrine of Oostacker, near Ghent, to cure his leg. His doctor, Van Hoestenberghe, who returned to the Faith as a result of the miracle, had given up the case. He testified to De Rudder's condition before the cure in the following words.

"I declare on my conscience and on my soul:

"1. I have examined De Rudder a dozen times and my last visit was two or three months before the cure.

"2. Each time I was able to make the ends of the bones come out of the wound: they were deprived of their periosteum, there was necrosis, the suppuration was fetid and abundant and has passed along the tendons....

"3. At each examination I introduced two fingers to the bottom of the wound, and always felt a separation of 4 to 5 centimeters between the broken parts, and this right across their breadth. I was able to turn them about easily.

"4. A large sequestrum had come away at the beginning and little bits of bone often came away during these years."

This testimony was confirmed by witnesses who saw De Rudder a few days before the cure, and on the way to Oostacker. The driver of the train on which he traveled to Oostacker observed the broken leg swinging to and fro and remarked "there goes a man who is going to lose his leg". De Rudder entered the Grotto and began to pray. Suddenly he felt a strange sensation. He rose, forgetting his crutches, without which he had not taken a single step for eight years, knelt before the statue of Our Lady, and, rising unaided, walked three times round the Grotto. He was cured. He was immediately taken to a neighboring chateau. The restored limb was examined; the two wounds had healed up, leaving two scars. The broken bones had suddenly been united. There was no shortening of the leg, in spite of the fact that De Rudder had lost substantial pieces of bone. The cure was attested by the entire village. The case was examined and re-examined by various doctors, and the bones, when exhumed, after De Rudder's death, fully support the above history of the case.