Graham et al

Does Post-GAFCON have to choose between being a movement and a 'church within a church'? If it continues to be a gathering of Anglicans in conferences (another in Jerusalem in 2010 is hinted at), a network of Anglicans working together for support and mission, and a voice calling the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Anglicans to remain faithful to biblical orthodoxy, its a movement. If it continues to include bishops who are utterly 'legit' and wholly in communion with Canterbury who also ordain bishops for work in territories claimed by other bishops (cf. current events in North America) then it is also a 'church within a church'. Ditto if it sets up systems for discerning candidates for ordination, training schemes oriented around Wycliffe, Oakhill, etc, and provides means for ordaining these candidates if they are not accepted by bishops-in-historic-diocesan roles.

One of the interesting parts of GAFCON is the common accord with Anglicans not otherwise deemed to be in full communion with Canterbury (cf. news about agreement for oversight of an Anglican congregation in Portugal). I sense that the next Lambeth Conference - should there be one - will be faced with strong pressure to include all PostGAFCON bishops, no matter what the previous history of their episcopal roles/territories.

Peter Carrell

Graham

Thank you for your helpful summary! The question of two+ provinces in North America (Canada, TEC, new province or Canada, TEC, two new provinces?) lobs the ball into ++Williams, ++Schori, and ++Hiltz's court. If they play legal, Nicea canon hardball then there would appear to be 'schism' in North America (i.e. if they absolutely refuse to recognise the validity of new province(s)). If they play authentic Anglican cricket, they will recognise a new form of the game is 'emerging' and engage with it as a 'new expression' of Anglicanism.

Archbishop Williams should consider doing this for the sake of the Communion and the prestige of the See of Canterbury. Primates Schori and Hiltz should consider doing this as penance for poor treatment of faithful Anglicans in their midst.

Are they going to be leaders or dividers?

I agree with the ABC's response to the GAFCON final statement.

I am disappointed at what it does not say!

Archbishop Rowan acknowledges there are significant problems in the Communion when he asks, "how is a bishop or primate in another continent able to discriminate effectively between a genuine crisis of pastoral relationship and theological integrity ...". To then urge renewed patient commitment to existing Communion structures seems to miss the point that GAFCON represents despair at effective response to genuine crises of pastoral relationship and theological integrity, most especially in terms of the crisis in North America, not all of which can be explained in terms of personality clashes etc.

I am prepared to suspend judgement to the end of Lambeth, but if some recognition from Archbishop Rowan of the genuine need for an alternative validated North American Anglican province does not emerge from it, then the prestige of his See will be diminished. (Of course he would be helped if the Lambeth non-attenders attended!)

It is very helpful to have Pete Broadbent's inside report of the Langham Place meeting.

In response to Ken Sawyer's request for comments re Arhcbishop Peter Jensen's talk, I offer the observation that there is a moderateness in what he says which one would never detect from reading (say) Riazat Butt on GAFCON.

But Archbishop Peter does make one error in his talk when he says, "Nothing terrifies more than an educated Protestant lay woman." I think some are terrified most by an educated Protestant woman bishop :)

Robert,

I would like to thank you for your contributions to this thread. They have been extensive and you have taken the trouble to respond to a large array of questions and counterpoints. Some have observed that the feel of this thread has become 'Gagnon versus the world'. But if some of us have not joined in 'on your side' that may be because we feel we have little to add to what you have said so comprehensively; or because we may find ourselves agreeing with the content of your arguments even as we find the actuality of care and reception of gay and lesbian people in the life of the church not quite as straightforward as your arguments imply. (That is not to say your arguments are wrong - no reply from you is sought here - just that sometimes logic and real life have a tense relationship)!

There is a saying in Anglicanism that confirmation is a rite looking for a theology. I personally am troubled by that part of Anglicanism that has moved from 'does Scripture really mean what it says about homosexuality?' to 'we are justified in blessing same sex unions and ordaining homosexuals who live in a committed same sex partnership'. There is a large theological gap between the raising of the question and the affirmation of the rites which is hardly ever acknowledged (in my survey of these matters). I suggest that one outcome of your contribution on this thread is that you have exposed the rites at the centre of the Communion crisis as still looking for a theology. 

All is not well in the Communion but that does not justify the GAFCON lead in its present form, as indicated by its Final Statement and Jerusalem Declaration. When a patient is sick not just any antibiotic becomes the right prescription.

Tanach is correct when he mentions insufficient consultation. One difficulty with the Final Statement and Jerusalem Declaration is it makes a standard of orthodoxy which, in the wording used e.g. solemnly declaring ... tenets of orthodoxy, looks very much like THE standard of Anglican orthodoxy without submitting this as a proposal to the wider community of orthodox Anglicans beyond those invited to GAFCON. This is sad because we desparately need more unity among conservative Anglicans not less, but that need for greater unity does not make GAFCON right and its critics wrong.

Another difficulty with the Final Statement and Jerusalem Declaration is that together they provide justification for those signing up to it to distinguish themselves from those who do not, declare those who do not to be unworthy of jurisdiction over them, and proceed to alternative episcopal oversight supervised by the Primates Council. Hence the concern of the likes of +Tom Wright who, like a number posting here, cannot sign up to the JD in its present form.

There is a way forward and it consists of the GAFCON leaders backtracking a little, revising the Final Statement and Jerusalem Declaration (after wider consultation), and making it less susceptible to criticism from fellow conservatives and more inclusive as 'orthodox' of those who could sign up to most of it but have authentic theological reservations about a clause or two. My own detailed criticisms of the FS/JD are posted at: http://anglicandownunder.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-i-cannot-sign-up-to-jerusalem.html 

What is the meaning of GAFCON's Final Statement/Jerusalem Declaration (FS/JD)? Tyring to make sense of recent comments in this thread, combined with reflection on articles by the likes of +Tom Wright, and reports of the All Souls meeting, I wonder if we are seeing two schools of thought emerging.

One school is that the FS/JD is about setting up a fellowship within the Communion which strengthens and safeguards those who are being buffeted by the winds of outrageous episcopal leadership. In this school of thought the fellowship is committed to the ultimate wellbeing of the Anglican Communion, seeing ahead to a day when its fabric is repaired, and has no plans to engage in schismatic action. Within this line of thinking lie (e.g.) Archbishop Peter Jensen's comments when back in Australia that GAFCON will make almost no difference to parishioners in Australia, John Richardson's comments that the C of E will continue to muddle along, and those commenters on the internet who emphasise the FS/JDs content as a kind of useful point of rallying together but (effectively) deny some wording in the FS/JD which in its "plain" meaning implies a formal structure with the JD as the basis of its fellowship and the grounds on which people might reject jurisdiction over them.

The other school of thinking is that the FS/JD is the next step in a process of setting up an Anglican structure within the life of the Communion which is a prototype of a new global Anglican Fellowship so that (say) one more "Gene Robinson" or "St Barts wedding" and the schism will be complete between the Communion and the new global Fellowship. In this school of thinking lie the comments posted below by John Rogers, the fears expressed by +Tom Wright because he takes the 'plain' meaning of the FS/JD seriously, and the 'choose this day' comments which have been reported from the All Souls meeting.

I think the first school of thought is going to prevail ... in which case Fulcrum's "centre" should be comfortable with the outcome of FS/JD ... or, is that too optimistic?!

Bishop Pete

I hope you never need a blood transfusion in a foreign land.

But if you did I suspect you would think you had quite an urgent need for some foreign importation of the necessities of life.

A number of Anglicans are looking for something to happen which breaks the impasse we seem to be in, and, appreciative though we are of the sign of GAFCON, are not necessarily convinced a de-Canterburyfied Communion is the answer. Thus your anxieties about unAnglican developments, foreign imports etc, and Pluralist's ... well, I am not quite sure what is being proposed by Pluralist which is useful ... between you is a great vacuum of action.

I think we already have a Faith and Order Commission. Its composed of the great and the good, and its plan is to try to muddle along. Just possibly Archbishop Rowan and the WCG are recognising that the Faith and Order Commission needs a revamp, a blood transfusion consonant to the needs of the time.

The old Anglican polity does not cut it. Time to cut a new deal!

Pete and Graham

If Calvin has one thing to teach us at this time - in which, paradoxically, the use of the term 'calvinism' appears uncongenial - it is the importance of careful yet comprehensive canvassing of all relevant issues in the articulation of theology.

While it is useful, and comparatively simple in terms of time and energy to have these internet discussions, I suggest the differences between 'Fulcrum' evangelicalism and 'FCA' evangelicalism require resolution through something more Calvin-like by way of a decent book (to which these discussions might be a prolegomena).

Or, to take a different approach, in times past the church has resolved some matters through councils. Is this a time to call a pan-Anglican evangelical council? The strength of GAFCON is that it found a way to be conciliar in its proceedings. Its weakness is that, in the end its outcomes do not reflect debate between all shades of evangelical theology within the Anglican Communion.

By 'council' I did not mean a congress! I am thinking of an event in which evangelicals, particularly evangelical theologians, of more stripes and hues than represented at GAFCON, could 'council' together on issues of urgency and importance - noting, for instance, the seeming intractibility of the ordination of women as an issue differentiating evangelicals.

Put in other words, whether organised by EFAC, CEEC, or any other acronym, could we see the likes of ++Peter Jensen, +Tom Wright, ++Henry Orombi, Elaine Storkey, Christopher Seitz, Michael Poon etc sit round a table and work out something, whether it be confession or covenant or 21st-century 39 Articles, which forwards the unity of Anglican evangelicals, and the making of common cause in the mission and fellowship of the Anglican Communion?

No doubt, prior to such a conciliar meeting, we need good exemplars in the forthcoming NEAC, and in conferences within other member churches of the Communion. I think, as a matter of fact, that GAFCON modelled a number of aspects of conciliarity very well. For all sorts of reasons it was not as wide an evangelical conference as some would have liked; but I hope history proves it to be a significant step on the way to a new Anglican evangelical unity for this present generation.

George, The question you pose appears to generate its own answer if no one responds!

I agree, there is much discussion here there and everywhere in the Fulcrum, GAFCON, Lambeth axis which is focused on the issue or issues, and not on people. Yet to focus on people and their pastoral needs is not always straightforward when engaged in written discourse such as internet comment requires. Some pastoral responses we make are instinctive and intuitive and not easily written up. Other responses may be pragmatic and make perfectly good sense in the reality of human relating, but be difficult to write about - words explaining a response can readily become words justifying a response, and then the words can seem more about the issue or issues than about people. Perhaps less words and more silence would be appropriate!

But there is also a small but important fact that is not easily dislodged. The challenge for some of us is that we do not feel we are primarily being asked to formulate an evangelical general pastoral response to homosexuality. We are being asked to agree or disagree on particular matters (ordinations, blessings of people in same sex partnerships) with some substantive reasoning in support (lest we be derided or disowned by erstwhile colleagues to the left and to the right). Given that in these particular matters it is not a general pastoral response which is being sought but a permanent decision of the church in favour of that which the church has hitherto been against, there is definitely an issue or two to discuss!