Archbishop of Canterbury responds to GAFCON statement

Source

Monday 30 June 2008

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

    Comments & Responses

  1. The ABC must try to lead the AC and the forth coming Lambath according to the Word of God as recommended by the GAFCON.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/06  at  04:32 AM

  2. The ABC stated:

    “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.”

    Ok…

    Two points.

    First. By what stretch of your imagination have you concluded that those in the “GAFCON network” are opposed to any of the “millions of faithful and biblically focused Anglicans?”

    Second. I challenge you to explain just what “slogans, misrepresentations and caricatures” orthodox Anglicans, as represented by the GAFCON network, have made about the liberal, unorthodox, heretical, pro-homosexual, heterodox, miscreant so-called Anglicans that have hijacked the faith?

    By the way, where are we instructed in the Scriptures to “respect” and be “patient” with those in abject error? I can’t seem to find that verse.
    What I do find is:
    Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. [3]  But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; [4]  Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. [5]  For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. [6]  Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. [7]  Be not ye therefore partakers with them. [8]  For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: [9]  (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) [10]  Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. [11]  And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. [12]  For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. [13]  But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

    Lest you think that to speak harshly is unloving, may I direct you to Jesus himself:

    Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. [24]  Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. [25]  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. [26]  Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. [27]  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. [28]  Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.


    Steve

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/07  at  06:50 AM

  3. Well, it seems that the ABC has problems with many of GAFCON’s proposals, but especially with the proposal of forming a “Primates Council.”

    His biggest complaint is that he doesn’t think it would “pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion” because it would consist, as he says, “only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion…”

    Interesting. When I first read this paragraph, my eyes focused on the word “all” in his “… all in the Communion” phrase. I have to say that I’m more than a little curious as to just what the ABC meant by its inclusion. It seems to me that the only ones that would possibly have any problems with a “Primates Council” would be those who are opposed to maintaining historic traditional orthodox Anglicanism… i.e. the revisionists.

    For the ABC to be taken seriously, he must be able to provide an alternative solution, but alas… he cannot or will not. Trusting in the Lambeth Conference is not a tenable solution as history has shown that it simply doesn’t work. The differences between the orthodox and revisionists are too great. How many times has its declarations fallen on provincial deaf ears? So, to not form a “Primates Council”, or something similar, would be to simply continue along the same path that has led to the current crisis.

    For purposes of this discussion, let’s take a quick look at three of the options that have been tendered (though more have been offered) as possible mechanisms to repair the torn fabric of the Communion.

    The first choice for you to consider is: whether it would be better for Anglican leadership to be “self-selected” from a group of godly conservative orthodox Anglicans who hold to the primacy of the Word of God and will maintain the teachings of historic Christianity.

    Or, as a second choice, would it be better for a single person, The Archbishop of Canterbury, to head the Anglican Communion. A “Primus inter pares” so to speak. As that office is currently established, it would never work, as it is powerless to provide any real direction or discipline to the different provinces.

    Note:  The ABC wasn’t even self-selected from among the Primates of the Communion, rather he was elected through a very limited and politically controlled English process:

    1. The secular Prime Minister, after consultation, appoints a communicant lay member of the Church of England to chair the Crown Appointments Commission, which oversees the selection of a new Archbishop of Canterbury.

    2. The Vacancy-In-See Committee in the Diocese of Canterbury meets to choose four members to sit on the Crown Appointments Commission.

    3. The Crown Appointments Commission is formed, comprising the Archbishop of York and the three clergy and three lay members elected by General Synod as standing members.

    4. Names are suggested to the members of the CAC, from a wide variety of sources including the general public. The members decide which names to put forward for formal consideration by the Commission.

    5. The Crown Appointments Commission meets and “shortlists” the candidates. Two names are elected.

    6. The Commission sends the two names to the Prime Minister for consideration.

    7. The Prime Minister commends, assuming he is content with one of those names, to the Queen (the Prime Minister may request a further name or names). Once the chosen candidate has indicated a willingness to serve, 10 Downing Street announces the name of the Archbishop-designate.

    8. The Archbishop-designate is presented at a news conference.

    9. The Dean and Chapter of the diocese of Canterbury formally elect the new Archbishop of Canterbury (they have no recourse but to accept the CAC candidate). The election is confirmed in a legal ceremony.

    10. The new Archbishop takes up office and is formally enthroned at Canterbury Cathedral.

    All of this was said to say that the current ABC was appointed from a selection of possible candidates, primarily for political reasons, by a Prime Minister who later left the Anglican Communion to become a Roman Catholic?

    So now the Anglican Communion currently has a “Primus inter pares” who has secretly met with homosexual priests and their “partners” to give them Communion and consolation.  The Anglican Communion has a “Primus inter pares” who has no problems with innovation as he is publically supportive of women priests and bishops. The Anglican Communion has a “Primus inter pares” who is supportive of priest and bishops who are not just celibate homosexuals, but are actively practicing their sin (are transgendered priests and bishops far behind?). The Anglican Communion has a “Primus inter pares” who would dare stand and lecture the orthodox faithful about what it means to be a Christian, while his own actions reveal just how little he knows about or is willing to personally conform to “real” Christianity as described by Scripture, tradition, and history. The Anglican Communion has a “Primus inter pares” that gives much lip service and publically cries his crocodile tears over a fracturing communion all the while doing everything in his power, weather deliberately or through great ignorance, to divide it further. The Anglican Communion has a “Primus inter pares” who cries “Tolerance, tolerance” but in reality, this profound tolerance is nothing more than tacit acceptance and personal approval of deviants, heretics and those that would further pervert Anglicanism from the “true” Gospel.

    Perhaps as a third option, faithful orthodox Anglicans worldwide should simply hand over the faith to a larger body of provincial revisionists (like the Episcopal Church USA or Anglican Church of Canada) who are doing their best to remake the faith into something that they can feel comfortable with; something that allows their adherents to believe whatever they like, however unbiblical, while creating an outward appearance of godliness and faith. A new religion that only slightly resembles Christianity? A religion that cannot save, because there is nothing to be saved from, for sin, from their perspective, is really nothing more than not being tolerant or patient of everything and with everyone.

    What a difficult choice… NOT!

    Steve

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/09  at  01:58 AM

  4. Lambeth 2008 is the final opportunity for the Archbishop of Canterbury to defend the historic Christian Faith and see that those who have broken the bonds of affection by acting against Scripture, Church Tradition, and Catholic Orders are disciplined.

    Posted by Alice C. Linsley  on  07/15  at  03:21 AM
    5. Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: After GAFCON - Reflections by the Bishop of Durham

Previous entry: GAFCON Final Statement

<< Back to main