Forum Thread
Fulcrum Conference Islington 2008

I have now commented on the latest writings here and there.

Steve. I'm sorry to have gone irony-deaf. The odd thing about dialectics is that they don't normally have a privileged middle term... (And I'm still not sure if you think ++Rowan should be a silent witness to the (ahem) debates... or was that ironic too?) Is it possible that the dialectical tension is in fact between Evangelicals: the conservatives of GAFCON and the conservatives--except we accept the ministry of women and might eventually accept women as bishops-- represented by fulcrum and its allies. Their argument doesn't seem to allow for any sense that those who read the biblical texts in other ways might be properly christian at all. No wonder the What's the point of fulcrum thread has disappeared!

Thanks, Pluralist. Concerning the reference to 'super-apostles', it seems to me that the key clue is in the echo of a phrase by Phillip Jensen, Dean of Sydney. 

In Tom Wright's address to the Fulcrum Conference on 12 April 2008, he said (concerning GAFCON):

we are told that, if we want to go on being thought of as evangelicals, we should withdraw from Lambeth and join the super-gathering which, though not officially, is clearly designed as an alternative

Phillip Jensen, in his address in Sydney on 14 March 2008, 'The Limits of Fellowship', said: 

To those bishops who go to Lambeth knowing the unrepentant homosexual activity is wrong - your profession of evangelical credentials will always be tarnished.

I discussed this on the GAFCON forum thread, on 15 March 2008.

The context of the quote from Tom Wright above (which I have put in bold below) makes it clear that, in his thinking, the super-apostles are the ones who are organising the super-gathering (ie GAFCON).

Fourth, we have seen, predictably but sadly, the rise of the super-apostles, who have wanted everything to be cut and dried in ways for which our existing polity simply did not, and does not, allow. Please note, I do not for one moment underestimate the awful situation that many of our American and Canadian friends have found themselves in, vilified, attacked and undermined by ecclesiastical authority figures who seem to have lost all grip on the gospel of Jesus Christ and to be eager only for lawsuits and property squabbles. I pray daily for many friends over there who are in intolerable situations and I don't underestimate the pressures and strains. But I do have to say, as well, that these situations have been exploited by those who have long wanted to shift the balance of power in the Anglican Communion and who have used this awful situation as an opportunity to do so. And now, just as the super-apostles were conveying the message to Paul that if he wanted to return to Corinth he'd need letters of recommendation, we are told that, if we want to go on being thought of as evangelicals, we should withdraw from Lambeth and join the super-gathering which, though not officially, is clearly designed as an alternative, and which of course hands an apparent moral victory to those who can cheerfully wave goodbye to the 'secessionists'. I have written about this elsewhere, and it is of course a very sad situation which none of us (I trust) would wish but which seems to be worsening by the day.

This inference is further backed up by that last sentence, which refers to an earlier article. This, it seems to me, is the one written for the Church Times, 28 January 2008, and co-published with permission on Fulcrum, 'Evangelicals are not about to jump ship', in which he states:

Our Communion has for the past five years been living through 2 Corinthians: the challenge to re-establish an authority based on the gospel alone and embodied in human weakness. Inevitably, “super-apostles” then emerge, declaring that such theology is for wimps.

To them I would say: Are they Evangelicals? So am I. Are they orthodox? So am I. Do they believe in the authority of scripture? So do I (including the bits they regularly downplay). Are they keen on mission? So am I, and on the full mission of God’s kingdom which an older Evangelicalism often ignores.

Those who want to be biblical should ponder what the Bible itself says about such things. There are many in the GAFCON movement whom I admire and long to see at Lambeth, but the movement itself is deeply flawed. It does not hold the moral, biblical, or Evangelical high ground.

To say no to GAFCON is not to say yes to the revisionist agendas prevailing in much of the Episcopal Church in the US. It is to say yes to a Lambeth Conference based on and taking forward the Archbishop’s agenda of Windsor and the Covenant, in pursuit of what Dr Williams refers to in his recent letter as “an authoritative common voice”.

Tom Wright, in his Fulcrum conference address, was expanding on the thoughts which he first mentioned in the Church Times article. Perhaps Phillip Jensen's address, was a response to that article...?

Yes, Tony, you might have another look at what I wrote.  I sit somewhere among the 'muddled right', even if I'm not always comfortable there.  But as someone has said, wisely I think, being a Christian isn't about being comfortable. 

It would be about par for the course for those of you in your self-styled prayerful middle (should I have sensed irony?) to suggest that +Rowan should attend Lambeth as a mute observer, leaving those of us on the --apparently-- misguided left without primatial representation even of a compromised kind. The older hard-line suggestion that the Archbishop should resign was at least more honest!

Moe explanation regarding confusion over super-apostles here:

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/04/super-apostles.html

Incidentally Ruth Gledhill has it that Ed Greenhall says no letters have gone out (also via my blog). Of course the Anglican Communion Office does not write the letters, but it must be in the know: the only alternative is that Rowan Williams pops down to the pillar box himself and does not tell anybody.

Nicely put, Jonathan.  Good to see another familiar name here, and to have your input from over in Calgary.  Hello from London (not the one in Ontario)!

As a big admirer of Newbigin, I appreciate very much Tom Wright's call for openness to the stranger through whom we might hear the Scriptures afresh.   May it happen on the way to Lambeth and GAFCON. 

But like you I'm troubled with his references to 'super apostles', who in his mind have bought into the world's standard of success.  What a claim to make about fellow pastors.  It's very sad.  And then his dialectical, fulcrumesque logic comes in: there's the misguided left, the muddled right with its 'functional pragmatism', and then of course those in the careful, thoughtful and prayerful centre.  His appreciation for the real difficulties that so many find themselves in must be real, of course, but at what point does it translate into a critique of Rowan Williams' leadership, or (better) the process-oriented view of revelation that allows for RW's neutrality/'communion' liberalism? 

Peter Toon, I understand, who was against GAFCON, has changed his tune somewhat and now gives his qualified support, if urging those who can make it to Lambeth to attend that too.  This would certainly make sense if those who supported Gene Robinson's consecration were asked to come only as observers, and especially if recently-consecrated 'irregular' bishops were invited too.  I assume that while in some ways it may be too late for that, it would encourage some, perhaps many, to attend both.   Things are not so fragmented that an orthodox 'common cause' cannot be found following that sort of Lambeth. 

A sign of one of Tom Wright's basic concerns -- that the testimony to the truth often comes through pain and despair -- might be for RW, as a silent supporter of Gene Robinson's consecration, to invite himself to be an observer at Lambeth.  That shouldn't be so hard for someone who is already admired as a good listener. 

I don't want to put words in Tom's mouth or even act as his interpreter, but I heard the 'super apostles' reference as to GAFCON et al.

To those who have commented here that it is the TEC leaders who need to be faced with the question of their attitude to Windsor, I'd want to say that it is also those who have been involved in cross-border interference who need to face that question. Windsor cleaerly condemns such actions.

I've just checked with the lecture. I take it that the reference to super-apostles is a reference to The Episcopal Church leadership and not the GAFCON leadership. He refers to the GAFCON leadership in terms of taking back the label evangelical. The super-apostles are those who lead the Church astray. Further down, though, he refers to a super-gathering which is GAFCON. So it isn't clear. If he is calling GAFCON super-apostles, then it means he agrees with Michael Poon etc. that they are gnostic and not crucifixion-resurrection, but earlier on that seems to apply to the ones he regards as leading the North Americans away.

There is only so much value in making a distinction here; it comes down to the usual matter of "We're right and they're wrong."

_Thanks, Pluralist. Letters of invitation to the Lambeth Conference come from the Archbishop of Canterbury not from the Anglican Communion Office._

I know, but to add a little touch of humour here: are we to suppose that Rowan Williams takes the letters to the pillar box himself, or does he use the Anglican Communion Office to send them - at the least that this office knows what is going on (assuming anyone knows what is going on). Thus the statement from the ACO is its knowledge that the Archbishop has not sent out any letters. Therefore what is Tom Wright talking about, and if he doesn't know why is he talking about it?