|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/572
Fulcrum Subjects: Anglicanism, Church of England / Anglicanism, Windsor Process Other articles by Graham Kings are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 17 comments on this article BBC Interview on the General Synod Vote on the Anglican Communion Covenant Transcript of BBC Radio 4 Sunday Programme interview 28 November 2010 with Graham Kings, Bishop of Sherborne interviewed by William Crawley The information on the programme is here. An Anglican Mainstream transcript of the interview with Bishop Martyn Minns, earlier in the programme, is here. Audio of the full interviews with Martyn Minns and Graham Kings is available on the new FulcrumAnglican channel on YouTube. Graham Kings can be heard from 5:12.
Interview with Graham Kings Q. How significant will this week prove to be in the history of the Anglican Communion? A. I think it is very significant because the General Synod gave an overwhelming vote in support of the Covenant. It was attacked from the left and it was attacked from the right, but following the lead of a strong Presidential Address from the Archbishop, it was an overwhelming support. So rather than being fatally flawed, it was given a life-giving boost. Q. Are you at all sympathetic to the GAFCON primates who plainly believe that other member church members of the Communion cannot be trusted to honour any covenant? a. No, I’m not. I’m sympathetic to the leadership of the Global South Anglican movement, which is different from GAFCON. GAFCON is a subset of that and the chair of the Global South Anglican movement is John Chew, the Bishop of Singapore and Archbishop of South East Asia and John emailed me and said the Singapore Diocese have passed the covenant. He was involved in the commission that brought it together and similarly Mouneer Anis, Bishop in Egypt and Presiding Bishop of the Middle East is still in favour of the Covenant - there are still some questions - and Ian Ernest who is the chair of CAPA, the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa. These three moderate Global South Anglican leaders are still in favour of the covenant, and so it is just not a case that the whole of the Global South - GAFOCON is not the whole of the Anglican South. Q. And it is fair to say that even without GAFCON’s rejections; this wasn’t a universally popular covenant was it? A. No, as I say it was attacked from people on the left and there were adverts in the church press - some misinformation in that that was corrected - and it was attacked also from the right, but it was an overwhelming vote. That was utterly extraordinary. Q. What do you think of Martyn Minns’s comment that this is not the end game for the communion but a revolution in how the communion organises itself and its conversations? A. First of all Martyn, although he is part of the Anglican Church in North America, that is not the Anglican, The Episcopal Church in America. There is a long standing church there, The Episcopal Church in the USA. ANCA, the Anglican Church in North America, is a split off and Martyn and Robert Duncan, they formed their own church – just invented their own church. I am sympathetic to their views. I’m conservative on sexuality myself, but not the way they see the church. I don’t want the church and the Communion to be split off in the States and I don’t want that to become a model. I was worried when Martyn spoke about reducing the Communion to a network. Networks are very different from an organic Communion. Q. Nevertheless you can’t force people to keep talking and discussing issues when they don’t want to. Isn’t it time to face facts and recognize that those who don’t want to be part of it are already leaving. A. I think the key thing about the Anglican Communion Covenant is that it is an opt-in covenant, so nobody is forcing people to join it. If you join it, then you are part of the Anglican Communion and fully involved in the representative bodies. If you decide not to opt in, then you are still part of the Anglican Communion: you are not in the centre in terms of representation, so there is no force in this and it’s up to the choices of provinces. The interesting thing about the GAFCON Primates’ Council is that they can’t decide for their provinces. It has to go to their provinces and it hasn’t gone yet, just a recommendation from some key leaders, certainly in Africa. I was in Kenya for seven years and loved it. I was there again in ‘07 and talked to key leaders. I was in Sudan last year at the Standing Committee of the Provincial Synod and Archbishop Daniel Deng is an extraordinary Archbishop. That Standing Committee passed the Covenant as it then was and there’s going to be a Provincial Synod next November. Now Daniel Deng himself is on the GAFCON Primates’ Council, so one of them passed it. He couldn’t be at the Oxford meeting, so that why he was never mentioned. Q. So very briefly bishop, is there a plan B? A. No. The covenant is the only way forward, which is an extraordinary middle way. Where there is will there is a way Q. Bishop Graham Kings, many thanks to you. ______________________________________________________ Dr Graham Kings is the Bishop of Sherborne and theological secretary of Fulcrum. His November 2010 Guardian article, 'The Anglican Covenant is the only Way Forward' may be read here; his February 2010 interview with the Church of England Newspaper about the Anglican Church in North America may be read here; his January 2008 Church of England Newspaper article, 'Substance and Shadow: Lambeth Conference and GAFCON' may be read here; and his November 2006 Church of England Newspaper article, 'Splitters United or Patient Pressure?' may be read here. Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 14 December 2010 - 04:27pm Hi Dave - it is not so much that I dislike it but the new-fangled 'standing committee' is not accepted by many Primates ...respected Archbishops have resigned from it because it is doing what it is intended to do i.e. nothing against revisionists and their presence was futile (see letter from ++Anis when he resigned) and many Primates are not going to Dublin in Jan..... the reason is that it is a set-up, a committee designed to avoid any discipline on the tiny no who want us to deviate from the teaching of the church catholic... that is why small, declining provinces, in which revisionists attract so few in their own countries to hear about 'ubuntu' etc, are on it and the major Anglican provinces are under-represented. The new-fangled 'standing committee' is not needed by most of the AC, just by revisionists, as the Primates are more than capable of making the required decisions for the Communion..... but because they consistently come up with decisions´(in line with Windsor!) that are inconvenient for tiny groups of revisionists and finding an Hegelian synthesis (aka an accommodation with false teaching), a 'standing committee' has been dreamed up which, funnily enough, gives the same tiny revisionist groups over-representation - dooming the AC to yet more endless years of faux 'indabas' until it is so divided and weakened by departures that revisionists can get there way, no doubt....'an inch at a time'. Thankfully, as with Lambeth 08, a lot of Primates have read what the NT says about how to deal with false teaching..... and are not looking for any Hegelian synthesis, preferring the apostles' advice to Hegel..... and they are not going to waste their time in Dublin given it, like Lambeth 08, deliberately includes revisionists and deliberately excludes any prospect of decisions against their false teaching being upheld.....just more chat with revisionists in on offer.... As with Lambeth 08 invitations, the ABC may well carry on regardless and let the Communion divide further because of his loyalty to those who 'tore the fabric of the Communion'..... only in the interests of revisionists.... Posted by: John Martin Monday 13 December 2010 - 10:00am Dave You say, "So Fulcrum and Reform do make competing claims to be the evangelical voice?" The only body with any constitutional claim to speak for all evangelical Anglicans is the CEEC. Posted by: Dave Sunday 12 December 2010 - 08:19pm John, You refer to the CEEC statement of faith, which is on this website. This gives a summary of what English Evangelical Anglicans hold in common. Nothing in that Reform would disagree with. This site also has a statement called "What is the Evangelical Center" This includes statements on women's ministry which Reform disagrees with and human sexuality which "liberal evangelicals are likely to disagree with. Thus the evangelical center excludes various extremes but includes many with more moderate leanings in an open, conservative or open direction. So Fulcrum and Reform do make competing claims to be the evangelical voice? Nersen, What is the basis of your dislike for the standing committee? I assume that it is the one described on http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/scac/scac_members.cfm . This is nor dominated by TEC. why say it is revisionist? Wales may be over represented. The other thing is that this committee is required so seek advice from the primates. Is it too much of a lead to suggest they are also expected to follow this advice. David Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 11 December 2010 - 12:29pm Thank you for that explanation, John. Would you not agree that there seems to be somewhat more patience with the ABC than with GAFCON from Fulcrum leaders? Obviously, I am less patient with the ABC than some Fulcrum leaders seem to be....but I think both GAFCON and Fulcrum leaders might do well to work with each other more.....sadly, there does not seem to be much appetite for that..... but I am afraid that I think GAFCON and non-GAFCON GS Primates are right not to waste more time with the ABC's endless faux 'indaba' strategy after 7 years of revisionists successfully keeping over-representd places in the councils of the Communion. I hope the ABC comes to his senses and acts to get the Primates who have not torn the fabric of the Communion to Dublin.....but he did not act in that way in 08....and GAFCON was born. I hope the ABC reforms the new-fangled 'standing committee' along the lines Dr Seitz (ACI) suggests.... that would solve the problem.......then, perhaps, Fulcrum and GAFCON leaders might work together and not be divided by questions of loyalty to the ABC and ecclesiology - when there is significant theological agreement on key issues - that ought to unite us more. Posted by: John Martin Saturday 11 December 2010 - 11:22am Nersen Let me try again. 1. Fulcrum has never used the term 'open evangelical' of itself. It's a term with a history with no small amount of baggage. Fulcrum has as its doctrinal statement that of the CEEC and it has always sought to occupy the evangelical centre. 2. Fulcrum has always had its eyes open to the flaws in the Anglican Communion and its 'instruments' and believes they need significant change. It differs from GAFCON by its insistence that the best route for this is the Anglican Covenant and by urging patience all round. Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 11 December 2010 - 09:16am John - so, is it wrong to put Fulrcum in the 'open evangelical' space? I guess it must be given your reply below. And why is my second point 'untrue'? Has the ABC not kept revisionists in the councils of the Communion (eg in 08) and were not his invitations to revisionists a surprise to Tom Wright....and were not those invitations the trigger for GAFCON to form given so many bishops and Primates though it a waste of time to go to 'faux' indabas designed to make no decisions? Open to persuasion but merely stating something is untrue without any explanation is not very persuasive..... would be great to see a strong case for why all is well in the AC! Posted by: John Martin Friday 10 December 2010 - 06:10pm Nersen You say: "Yet OEs attack GAFCON and not the decisions which led to its creation." 1. Fulcrum has never used the term 'open evangelicals' of itself. 2. The second point is simply untrue. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 10 December 2010 - 10:13am Canadiahobbits - why are you encouraged by the 'Communion partners'? What have they achieved? Looks like zero (as LA has shown).... are they not strengthening a revisionist leadership and tolerated because they can change nothing and do change nothing? They are loyal to the institution.....but yoked with and led by revisionists. Not sure on what basis they are called to that kind of loyalty.... or by whom. But their impact on TECusa is clear - zip. +Graham - 'open evangelicals' (defined as those in line with Fulcrum published positions) seem to remain loyal despite Windsor being ignored by the ABC when he wants to protect revisionists' place in the AC (see the councils of the Communion, eg Dublin Primates' meeting and see Lambeth 08 invitations which led directly to the creation of GAFCON). Yet OEs attack GAFCON and not the decisions which led to its creation. Hard to see how the solution to our issues is a covenant subverted by the invention of a 'standing committee' with massive revisionist over-representation.... and why loyalty to the ABC helps anyone apart from revisionists who are still, after years of chat and nothing more than token decisions against them, in the councils of the Communion..... not sure what OEs get in return for their loyalty - but revisionists have done very well out of the ABC's decisions...and, for them, he accepts many Primates not coming to Dublin Posted by: Deleted user 1601 Friday 10 December 2010 - 03:48am Thanks Bishops Kings for the link to the more comprehensive analysis of ACNA. I have found the American Communion Partners position encouraging, as was their recent conference in Florida, attended by a Canadian priest from a diocese govenerned by a revisionist bishop. With respect to the Windsor moratorium on cross-border interventions, do you see a distinction between a missionary bishop, sent at the initiative of a concerned province, and a bishop providing alternative episcopal oversight at parish's invitation? When a diocesan bishop has broken their commitment "to teach and act in continuity and consonance with Scripture and the catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition, as received by the Churches of the Anglican Communion, mindful of the common councils of the Communion and our ecumenical agreements" (Covenant 1.2.1) and has effectively refused a parish alternative episcopal oversight from within the borders of their province would Windsor recommendation 152 apply? I understand that many within the newly formed 'Anglican Network in Canada' (ANiC) see Southern Cone's provision of episcopal care as an application of that recommendation: "In principle, we see no difficulty in bishops from other provinces of the Communion becoming involved with the life of particular parishes under the terms of these arrangements in appropriate cases". I am praying that the Covenant will truly provide a way forward and allow us to witness to the unifying love in which Jesus longs to include us. The Covenant is designed for national churches, but can you forsee its ratification by smaller bodies: individual dioceses (as in the US Communion Partners) or even individual parishes within dioceses whose bishops' actions are incompatible with the covenant? 
Posted by: Graham Kings
Thursday 9 December 2010 - 12:32pm
Thanks, Canadian Hobbits. I commented in more detail on the setting up of ACNA in my interview with CEN, 9 February 2010, 'General Synod Motion concerning ACNA'. Again, I am sympathetic to your difficult context, am conservative on issues of sexuality, but disagree with the ecclesiology of ACNA. A few updates on the Covenant vote in General Synod: The CEN interviewed me for last Friday's edition, 3 December 2010, 'Bishop Says Hope will Keep Covenant Alive'. The audio file of the BBC Radio 4 Sunday Programme interviews by William Crawley with Martyn Minns and me on 28 November 2010, may now be heard on the FulcrumAnglican channel on You Tube here. John Martin has written a perceptive article, 'The Covenant is Good News for Anglicanism', Christian Today, 7 December 2010. It is being discussed on TitusOneNine site here. Posted by: Deleted user 1601 Sunday 5 December 2010 - 01:45am I would like to reflect on Bishop Kings' analysis that Bob Duncan had, with Martyn Minns, started their own church: the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). I think this brief comment doesn't do justice to the situation in Canada at least. I do not know enough of the details of the other dioceses within ACNA. The parishes in the Diocese of New Westminster who eventually joined the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC), now a diocese within ACNA, tried earnestly to seek alternative episcopal oversight under the terms of the Windsor Report. Their diocesan bishop restricted the boundaries of that oversight to the point where the alternative bishop resigned. Even though that diocesan bishop had sanctioned same sex blessings in contravention of Lambeth 1.10 and resisted the recommended effective alternative episcopal oversight he was not held accountable by the Canadian House of Bishops. There were no relational consequences and he was invited to Lambeth 2008. The parishes then sought, and were graciously offered, the alternative epicopal oversight recommended by the Windsor Report but denied them by the Canadian House of Bishops by Archbishop Venables of the Southern Cone. This ministry was then delegated to retired Canadian Bishop Donald Harvey. As the initiative for the episcopal intervention came from the orphaned orthodox parishes many in Canada do not see the formation of ANiC as a 'cross border intervention' or breach of the Windsor Moratoria. The recognition of ACNA by many global south primates confirms the integrity of these bishops. The failure of the active members of the Canadian House of Bishops to respond to the call for alternative episcopal oversight is at the root of the ANiC diocese within the Anglican Church of North America. Those of us who have not suffered the agonizing choices posed by an unfaithful bishop long to see a Covenant process that can truly be trusted to restore eucharistic communion. We do want the true unity that Jesus' prayed for in John 17:23 with all our hearts that the world may know Father's great love.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 3 December 2010 - 09:39am
Many thanks for your comments, Canadian Hobbits. 'Pageantmaster' - new name needed of 'Master Scribe'? - has made full transcripts of the BBC Radio 4 Sunday Programme 28 November 2010 interviews by William Crawley with Lord Carey, Martyn Minns and me. He posted them on the thread relating to that programme on TitusOneNine on 2 December 2010. Click on the following links: Lord Carey Martyn Minns Graham Kings He also links into the Anglican Mainstream (Martyn Minns) and Fulcrum (Graham Kings) transcripts. Posted by: Deleted user 1601 Thursday 2 December 2010 - 08:07pm Thank you Bishop Kings for pointing out the link to the Minns interview transcript. I had missed it, my apologies. Thanks also for the invitation to participate in discussions without a nom de plume. I have responded to the Fulcrum editorial board clarifying why I will continue as a Hobbit for now... I don't want to seem deliberately disingenuous. The image of being small and powerless yet called to a momentous journey does appeal to me. Like Frodo, "I wish none of this had happened". And I too need to hear Gandalf's exhortation: "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us." But this is God's story... and we are still in it. Nersenpaul, I agree that the apostles did not encourage us to tolerate false teaching but Paul also encourages us to be gentle and patient in 2 Timothy 2:24 - 26, even with false teachers (bold font). "And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will." In 2 Timothy 3:5 Paul does encourage Timothy to 'avoid' those who have the appearance of godliness but deny its power. I think this does apply to those who wear the appearance of godly love for the world, but distort God's image-bearing intention in creating heterosexuality and deny his power to restore that image in those who, for whatever reason, do not have heterosexual orientation. But when should patience give way to avoidance? I continue to pray and search for Biblical wisdom to answer this crucial question. A passage that I think is pertinent is Jesus' words to the church in Thyatira in Revelation 2:18 -29. To summarize, he holds their tolerance of a teacher of sexual immorality against them, but rather than exhorting them to enact judgement, he promises to judge her. Verses 22 and 23 both begin with "I will..." Jesus then instructs the church to "Only hold fast what you have until I come" in verse 25. The Covenant's invitation to all who will opt in seems reasonable, given Jesus' patience, but the 'relational consequences' or avoidance must be clear and timely according to Paul. Ultimate judgement belongs to Jesus. It does seem that bishops who actively or passively allow violation of the Windsor moratoria are described in 2 Timothy 3: 8b, 9 " these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all". I think we need to answer the call of the Twenty Sixth article quoted in my earlier post and disqualify these leaders. It does seem providential that this is unfolding in Advent... we wait for the Lord Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 2 December 2010 - 12:59pm Canadian Hobbits- thanks for you clear analysis which shows how inappropriate it is that TEC is on the new-fangled 'standing committee' and how GS Primates have, after many years of patience, now given up on the manipulative faux indaba process ....... being loyal to the ABC, as if he were an apostle rather than a brilliant academic struggling in a job to which he is not suited, is not the solution to the consequences we are witnessing of the torn fabric of the Communion in 2003..... the failure for there to be meaningful consequences for TECusa going against 'the mind of the Communion' is leading to its slow disintegration.....perhaps why the apostles did not tolerate false teaching nor tell us to do so. The ABC needs to ditch the trojan horse 'standing committee' to get people interested again.....nobody needs to be linked with him to carry on their work and mission so he should not assume people will come round...including to his search for a 'synthesis' of ideas which creates space for false teaching. But then, he has revisionist views so his stance is no surprise.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Thursday 2 December 2010 - 09:39am
Thanks, Canadian Hobbits - we encourage people on Fulcrum forums to use their real names: would you consider this please? Thanks. When we published the transcript of my interview, we put a link into the Anglican Mainstream transcript of the Martyn Minns interview as part of the heading, just below the headline. It is still there and that transcript may be viewed here. Posted by: Deleted user 1601 Wednesday 1 December 2010 - 05:49pm Thank you for the transcript, are there plans to transcribe the initial part of the interview with Martyn Minns so that both sides may be heard? The live radio broadcast will only be posted for a week. I found your observations on the continuing engagement of some Global South Primates encouraging but the significance of the Oxford Statement's signatories effective withdrawal from the Covenant process seems underestimated. Of the four instruments of unity necessary to the pursuit of the Covenant process, none seems to be in working order at present: The Archbishop of Canterbury's decisions on invitations and agenda for both Lambeth 2008 and the upcoming Primates meeting in Dublin have alienated as significant portion of the communion. The Primates meetings whose resolutions can be overruled seem to have lost the confidence and now the participation of many Primates whose advice is needed by the Standing Committee to oversee the Covenant. The withdrawal of Archbishop Anis from the Anglican Consultative Council has thrown doubt on the second body responsible for overseeing the Covenant through the Standing Committee. The most recent Lambeth conference's failure to engage many bishops is discouraging. While invitations can extended with the understanding that acceptance does not imply theological agreement with all others present, the fact is that these are gatherings that include eucharistic communion. While waiting for adoption of the Covenant fulfills our 'solemn obligation to nurture and sustain eucharistic communion' (1.2.7), it is clear that there are powerful members of the Standing Commitee whose Churches are in violation of the Covenant and show no willingness to repent. This undermines confidence in (4.2.8): TEC has neither adopted nor is in process of adopting Covenant principle (1.2.2) While the Twenty Sixth article emphasizes that an unworthy minister does not hinder the effectiveness of the sacraments it does continue: "Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed." do the 'relational consequences' promised by the Covenant meet this standard?
Posted by: Graham Kings
Wednesday 1 December 2010 - 07:58am
We have just published on Fulcrum a transcript of my interview on the BBC Radio 4 Sunday Programme with William Crawley, 28 November 2010. |
LATEST
|