Iker Embracing GAFCON?
Iker's endorsement of GAFCON & its communique (6/29) puzzled me. Fort Worth should have, in my opinion, held out for something with a firmer grip on tradition. For it is surely a sign of our troubled times that Fort Worth should trade catholicity for GAFCON's heretical ecclesiology. Should we expect FiFNA-type Anglo-catholics in general to line up behind the Communique?
Closing Thoughts on GAFCON
In spite of all the trouble that the Communique portends, I cannot help but feel rather pleased with the outcome of GAFCON.
It seems to me some comments--from those sympathetic to GC2003--correctly anticipate stepped-up, shameless efforts to split parishes and dioceses from the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and perhaps others. The Jerusalem Declaration promises more border crossing: newly minted American purple (CANA, AMiA, et al) needs feeding. I suppose that is something to be upset about; after all, TEC has no sustainable protocol for handling separatist actions. Schori's ad hoc handling of Schofield and the DSJ points up shortcomings in the canons; recourse to the courts may end up undermining catholic ecclesiology in the eyes of the law. TEC will have to come up with sustainable procedures for easing disaffected reactionaries off to Africa, the Southern Cone, or wherever. But I assume that can be done; I have seen how it could be done in Central Florida with Howe. Working out such procedures should be a primary task of GC2009.
What's so encouraging about GAFCON then? I take no pleasure in what seems to be the inept phrasing of (8); I know the GAFCONites do not really intend to be as tolerant as (8) sounds. What then? They are still in the Anglican Communion. The very fact that the Communique makes GAFCON's essential activity out to be catholic border crossing & poaching shows that GAFCON is too weak to sustain schism at the level of the Communion and that right wingers in the US and Canada are too weak to sustain schism on their own without help from abroad. The best that can be done--after five years of turmoil--is a redoubling of efforts to create a vampire, a province in North America "parallel" in some sense to those already there whose life comes from stealing the life of the provinces already there.
Why is the existence of such a vampiric parasite encouraging? The weakness, the inability to point out any new kind of essential activity beyond the formation of a new bureaucratic institution--a Primates Council or some such entity--and the inability to offer positive content for self-definition show a movement that has lost initiative in the Anglican Communion. It is open for others outside GAFCON to seize intiative by offering the AC a positive form of activity--outside that of watching the parasite at work and cheering or hissing. This is Lambeth's task: what accessible positive form of activity is there? The answer is obvious: writing the covenant. You may frown, but hold on and see where I am going with this. If you disagree, you are free to come up with an alternative.
A second point: as I've mentioned before, the Jerusalem Declaration is heretical, at least in a material sense. Given the inept wording of point (8), one cannot--alas--credit the writers with surplus acuity. In particular, points (6) and (13) contradict, implying that the Declaration is theologically incoherent. So what, you ask? Ideally, the positive form of activity the AC takes up could press GAFCON on this incoherence, forcing GAFCONites to make a choice between different forms of coherence: (1) give up catholicity in order to pursue parasitism, (2) give up parasitism in order to remain catholic. My bet is some GAFCONites, those whose purple depends on parasitism, will opt for (1)--but many who can live well enough without parasitism will opt for (2). In other words, GAFCON can be split in the formation of a covenant on the question of catholicity.
What's the tension between (6) and (13), exactly? (6) commits GAFCONites to catholicity through allegiance to the Creeds contained in the traditional formularies to which (6) refers. (13) commits GAFCONites to denying the authority of those churches in the AC with whom they disagree.
Please note as an aside that the wording of (8) is so weak, it leaves the cause of border crossing unclear, inasmuch as TEC and the ACC have not violated (8) as it stands; unless (8) is amended, on its own grounds the Jerusalem Declaration implies the border crossings are unjustified. However, let's put that point aside for the sake of argument. I expect claims of rational consistency will not move GAFCONites to restraint.
Authority is a mark of the catholic church: if X is a church, X has authority, and if X has no authority, then X is not a church. It follows if TEC is a church, TEC has authority, and if TEC has no authority, it is not a church.
But is permissible to deny that TEC has authority only if TEC has no authority. That is, anyone wrongly denying the authority of TEC ought to say otherwise. Since (13) commits GAFCONites to denying the authority of TEC, and presumably the GAFCONites mean well, it follows they are committed to TEC not being a Christian church as a condition of the permissibility of their denying TEC's authority.
But the Episcopal Church is a Christian church; the members of TEC are Christians who ordain and are ordained, who baptize and are baptized, who give thanks in the Eucharist and most importantly, in their worship they accept Christ as their Lord and Savior. Moreover, by remaining part of the Anglican Communion, GAFCONites remain members of an organization that recognizes member provinces--still including the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church--as Christian churches. If they disagree with that assessment, it would seem GAFCONites would be obliged to say so; they would be obliged to say the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada are not Christian churches. But they have not said so. Sure, they have come close, but merely coming close does not count.
So on the one hand, by denying TEC's authority, GAFCONites are committed to TEC not being a Christian church, but on the other hand, TEC is a Christian church, and the GAFCONites' continuing membership in the Anglican Communion confirms their agreement with the claim the TEC is a church and is Christian. That is, the GAFCONites are committed to an absurdity: TEC is a Christian church and it is not a Christian church. The same goes for the ACC.
That absurdity is manifest in the praxis promised by the Declaration: border crossing treats the Episcopal Church as no catholic church should be treated. The Declaration's pet praxis denies in action what GAFCONites have committed themselves to in words by their allegience to the ancient creeds. What if in effect the Declaration rationalizes sin against the Holy Spirit--as the creeds name the Spirit as the agent of ecclesial catholicity--in the name of the Holy Spirit--as GAFCON explicitly claimed the Spirit was acting in its deliberations? Perilious indeed.
I believe GAFCON's Communique leaves their movement open to a crippling response via the upcoming covenant. Any covenant that refuses to take catholicity seriously, thereby colluding in GAFCON's attempt to rationalize--even institutionalize--sin against the Holy Spirit should be rejected out of hand. Any church submitting to such a covenant would have compromised its catholicity, thereby putting its very being as a church in peril. A proper respect for catholicity would seem a minimal condition of the covenant's acceptibility. It would seem a "no-brainer": the covenant should punish border crossing, implicitly recognizing the bankrupt ecclesiology of the Declaration as the theologically incoherent fraud it is.
It seems to me some comments--from those sympathetic to GC2003--correctly anticipate stepped-up, shameless efforts to split parishes and dioceses from the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and perhaps others. The Jerusalem Declaration promises more border crossing: newly minted American purple (CANA, AMiA, et al) needs feeding. I suppose that is something to be upset about; after all, TEC has no sustainable protocol for handling separatist actions. Schori's ad hoc handling of Schofield and the DSJ points up shortcomings in the canons; recourse to the courts may end up undermining catholic ecclesiology in the eyes of the law. TEC will have to come up with sustainable procedures for easing disaffected reactionaries off to Africa, the Southern Cone, or wherever. But I assume that can be done; I have seen how it could be done in Central Florida with Howe. Working out such procedures should be a primary task of GC2009.
What's so encouraging about GAFCON then? I take no pleasure in what seems to be the inept phrasing of (8); I know the GAFCONites do not really intend to be as tolerant as (8) sounds. What then? They are still in the Anglican Communion. The very fact that the Communique makes GAFCON's essential activity out to be catholic border crossing & poaching shows that GAFCON is too weak to sustain schism at the level of the Communion and that right wingers in the US and Canada are too weak to sustain schism on their own without help from abroad. The best that can be done--after five years of turmoil--is a redoubling of efforts to create a vampire, a province in North America "parallel" in some sense to those already there whose life comes from stealing the life of the provinces already there.
Why is the existence of such a vampiric parasite encouraging? The weakness, the inability to point out any new kind of essential activity beyond the formation of a new bureaucratic institution--a Primates Council or some such entity--and the inability to offer positive content for self-definition show a movement that has lost initiative in the Anglican Communion. It is open for others outside GAFCON to seize intiative by offering the AC a positive form of activity--outside that of watching the parasite at work and cheering or hissing. This is Lambeth's task: what accessible positive form of activity is there? The answer is obvious: writing the covenant. You may frown, but hold on and see where I am going with this. If you disagree, you are free to come up with an alternative.
A second point: as I've mentioned before, the Jerusalem Declaration is heretical, at least in a material sense. Given the inept wording of point (8), one cannot--alas--credit the writers with surplus acuity. In particular, points (6) and (13) contradict, implying that the Declaration is theologically incoherent. So what, you ask? Ideally, the positive form of activity the AC takes up could press GAFCON on this incoherence, forcing GAFCONites to make a choice between different forms of coherence: (1) give up catholicity in order to pursue parasitism, (2) give up parasitism in order to remain catholic. My bet is some GAFCONites, those whose purple depends on parasitism, will opt for (1)--but many who can live well enough without parasitism will opt for (2). In other words, GAFCON can be split in the formation of a covenant on the question of catholicity.
What's the tension between (6) and (13), exactly? (6) commits GAFCONites to catholicity through allegiance to the Creeds contained in the traditional formularies to which (6) refers. (13) commits GAFCONites to denying the authority of those churches in the AC with whom they disagree.
Please note as an aside that the wording of (8) is so weak, it leaves the cause of border crossing unclear, inasmuch as TEC and the ACC have not violated (8) as it stands; unless (8) is amended, on its own grounds the Jerusalem Declaration implies the border crossings are unjustified. However, let's put that point aside for the sake of argument. I expect claims of rational consistency will not move GAFCONites to restraint.
Authority is a mark of the catholic church: if X is a church, X has authority, and if X has no authority, then X is not a church. It follows if TEC is a church, TEC has authority, and if TEC has no authority, it is not a church.
But is permissible to deny that TEC has authority only if TEC has no authority. That is, anyone wrongly denying the authority of TEC ought to say otherwise. Since (13) commits GAFCONites to denying the authority of TEC, and presumably the GAFCONites mean well, it follows they are committed to TEC not being a Christian church as a condition of the permissibility of their denying TEC's authority.
But the Episcopal Church is a Christian church; the members of TEC are Christians who ordain and are ordained, who baptize and are baptized, who give thanks in the Eucharist and most importantly, in their worship they accept Christ as their Lord and Savior. Moreover, by remaining part of the Anglican Communion, GAFCONites remain members of an organization that recognizes member provinces--still including the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church--as Christian churches. If they disagree with that assessment, it would seem GAFCONites would be obliged to say so; they would be obliged to say the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada are not Christian churches. But they have not said so. Sure, they have come close, but merely coming close does not count.
So on the one hand, by denying TEC's authority, GAFCONites are committed to TEC not being a Christian church, but on the other hand, TEC is a Christian church, and the GAFCONites' continuing membership in the Anglican Communion confirms their agreement with the claim the TEC is a church and is Christian. That is, the GAFCONites are committed to an absurdity: TEC is a Christian church and it is not a Christian church. The same goes for the ACC.
That absurdity is manifest in the praxis promised by the Declaration: border crossing treats the Episcopal Church as no catholic church should be treated. The Declaration's pet praxis denies in action what GAFCONites have committed themselves to in words by their allegience to the ancient creeds. What if in effect the Declaration rationalizes sin against the Holy Spirit--as the creeds name the Spirit as the agent of ecclesial catholicity--in the name of the Holy Spirit--as GAFCON explicitly claimed the Spirit was acting in its deliberations? Perilious indeed.
I believe GAFCON's Communique leaves their movement open to a crippling response via the upcoming covenant. Any covenant that refuses to take catholicity seriously, thereby colluding in GAFCON's attempt to rationalize--even institutionalize--sin against the Holy Spirit should be rejected out of hand. Any church submitting to such a covenant would have compromised its catholicity, thereby putting its very being as a church in peril. A proper respect for catholicity would seem a minimal condition of the covenant's acceptibility. It would seem a "no-brainer": the covenant should punish border crossing, implicitly recognizing the bankrupt ecclesiology of the Declaration as the theologically incoherent fraud it is.
the GAFCON Communique: They're Still In
They are still in, and that is all that really matters:
We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it. And we believe that, in God’s providence, Anglicanism has a bright future in obedience to our Lord’s Great Commission to make disciples of all nations and to build up the church on the foundation of biblical truth (Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 2:20).
Fine by me.
True, there are some veiled threats further down, but the point is they are veiled, and surrounded by theological mush. For instance:
[I] Our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion. We, together with many other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed in these words:[II] The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it. [III] While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Building on the above doctrinal foundation of Anglican identity, we hereby publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of our fellowship.
I've added the brackets. Point [I] reiterates the opening affirmation of Communion unity, and--in virtue of its prominent placement here--should control the rest of the content in the paragraph. The threat, point [III], is not to be seen as contradicting (I): maybe these guys intend, say, to move the Communion away from Canterbury in the covenant process, or further in the future. Of course, in its ambiguity [III] also seems to voice the readiness and willingness of GAFCONites to split, had it been practically possible. The mush is in point [II]; nothing elsewhere in the communique explains what these things are taken to mean. The 39 Articles, the Ordinal, the BCP: what are they trying to accomplish by returning to these, exactly, and not some other formularies?
I suspect there are no other suitable formularies to which a return as here envisaged could be made; their importance at this point comes simply with the gesture of returning from where we are--presumably a very, very bad place indeed--to an earlier, purer time rather than with any special content these formularies have. In sum, the paragraph "turns up the heat" with a threat to the See and some ominous but indefinite mush, but overall it is still fine by me.
After all, they're still in.
On the Jerusalem Declaration
It would have been better for them to have stuck with the Creeds, or failing that, to have proclaimed something ostentatiously simple, like the Quadrilateral. There is a certain unseemly hubris in multiplying unnecessary entities; if the BCP, Ordinal and Articles are the standard, what are we doing with the additional rule? But they just had to have a "rule", so let's take a look at the novelty they cooked up all special-like for the occasion. I take it most everyone will agree with some of this stuff, namely parts (1), (2), (9-10), (12) and (14) of the new "rule":
1. We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit....
2. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation....
9. We gladly accept the Great Commission of the risen Lord....
10. We are mindful of our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation...
12. We celebrate the God-given diversity among us which enriches our global fellowship, and we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters....
14. We rejoice at the prospect of Jesus’ coming again in glory....
Some other things in the "rule" are infelicitously put, so although I know what they are trying to say--I think--the words come out wrong; still, no big whoop:
3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.
6. We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.
7. We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.
Again with the Articles, the Ordinal and BCP 1662; there's some possibly tendentious weirdness going on with the allusions to councils and creeds & apostolic succession, but OK. So we're pretty good with (1-4), (6-7), (9-10), (12), (14). That's ten out of fourteen: some substantial agreement, and maybe enough to work with.
That leaves us with some problems.
(5) is innocuous if it is read to leave room for inclusivism and is not meant to enshrine Substitutionary Atonement. Indeed, I read it as neutral on those points, given that Substitutionary Atonement could easily have been mentioned explcitly but was not, and inclusivism could easily have been ruled out by name so as to leave no question, but was not. So I'm fine with (5); good Anglican fudge! That's eleven out of fourteen: praise be to the good Lord and Savior.
(11) and (13) are just plain mean, committing GAFCONites to future strife and scandal:
We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration; this toys with denying the orders of those with whom GAFCONites have ongoing disagreements. In (13) we read "we reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed." The only way that the rejection promised in (13) is logically consistent with their allegiance to the formularies in (6) is if those with whom GAFCONites disagree are not really Christian and do not have churches except in name. Otherwise, they would be doing offense against the Body of Christ, putting their GAFCON allegiance before their allegiance to the
church catholic. Now, I have no evidence this inconsistency between (6) and (13) is intended--remember they are in the Communion in which they have said the Spirt providentially moves. That implies recognition of TEC and the ACC as Christian.
Thus, the inconsistency between (6) and (13) seems to be an instance of mere material, not formal heresy.
It should come as no surprise that GAFCON has--already--fallen into heresy, a heresy whereby they stand in contradiction of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. Getting the faith exactly right without some measure of epistemic humility is awfully hard. And note: this is why you should not fiddle around with novel rules and creeds. What we already have is more than enough. While they get their theology together in upcoming months/years, they are still welcome to worship with me at the Holy Altar. We are patient.
With great perplexity I come to (8):
We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.
This is a monumental ignoratio elenchii. Same sex unions are not marriages; acceptance of (8) is consistent with GC2003 and with much after. There are liberal clergy willing to bless SSUs and who are clear on SSUs being different from marriages. In fact, is not this what recently passed in the CoE with Father Dudley? If we are to take (8)--and GAFCON--seriously, then TEC is in compliance with (8)--as is the ACC. Are Communion conservatives so tolerant of late that they will let this equivocation slide? Perhaps the wording is not an accident, but is intended: meant to accomodate the CoE evangelicals who might be canonically bound to recognize civil unions of some sort.
Whatever: (8) is confused. To maintain (8) while continuing to hold TEC is at fault for moving to permit the blessing of SSUs and ordaining actively gay bishops is incoherent, immersing the entire controversy over GC2003 et al into a miasma. Again, this is why fiddling with novel confessions is silly: the convocation looks inept.
The controversy has shifted to dealing with borders and limits to bad behavior in the Anglican Communion: how long will GAFCONites persist in the heresy embodies in the conjunction of (6) and (13), insisting on catholicity with their lips while denying it in their works? That is why their still being in the Anglican Communion is important. If they are serious about the Creeds--and I believe at least some of them are--then they will eventually come around to respecting catholicity as their dream of schism fades.
We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it. And we believe that, in God’s providence, Anglicanism has a bright future in obedience to our Lord’s Great Commission to make disciples of all nations and to build up the church on the foundation of biblical truth (Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 2:20).
Fine by me.
True, there are some veiled threats further down, but the point is they are veiled, and surrounded by theological mush. For instance:
[I] Our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion. We, together with many other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed in these words:[II] The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it. [III] While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Building on the above doctrinal foundation of Anglican identity, we hereby publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of our fellowship.
I've added the brackets. Point [I] reiterates the opening affirmation of Communion unity, and--in virtue of its prominent placement here--should control the rest of the content in the paragraph. The threat, point [III], is not to be seen as contradicting (I): maybe these guys intend, say, to move the Communion away from Canterbury in the covenant process, or further in the future. Of course, in its ambiguity [III] also seems to voice the readiness and willingness of GAFCONites to split, had it been practically possible. The mush is in point [II]; nothing elsewhere in the communique explains what these things are taken to mean. The 39 Articles, the Ordinal, the BCP: what are they trying to accomplish by returning to these, exactly, and not some other formularies?
I suspect there are no other suitable formularies to which a return as here envisaged could be made; their importance at this point comes simply with the gesture of returning from where we are--presumably a very, very bad place indeed--to an earlier, purer time rather than with any special content these formularies have. In sum, the paragraph "turns up the heat" with a threat to the See and some ominous but indefinite mush, but overall it is still fine by me.
After all, they're still in.
On the Jerusalem Declaration
It would have been better for them to have stuck with the Creeds, or failing that, to have proclaimed something ostentatiously simple, like the Quadrilateral. There is a certain unseemly hubris in multiplying unnecessary entities; if the BCP, Ordinal and Articles are the standard, what are we doing with the additional rule? But they just had to have a "rule", so let's take a look at the novelty they cooked up all special-like for the occasion. I take it most everyone will agree with some of this stuff, namely parts (1), (2), (9-10), (12) and (14) of the new "rule":
1. We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit....
2. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation....
9. We gladly accept the Great Commission of the risen Lord....
10. We are mindful of our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation...
12. We celebrate the God-given diversity among us which enriches our global fellowship, and we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters....
14. We rejoice at the prospect of Jesus’ coming again in glory....
Some other things in the "rule" are infelicitously put, so although I know what they are trying to say--I think--the words come out wrong; still, no big whoop:
3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.
6. We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.
7. We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.
Again with the Articles, the Ordinal and BCP 1662; there's some possibly tendentious weirdness going on with the allusions to councils and creeds & apostolic succession, but OK. So we're pretty good with (1-4), (6-7), (9-10), (12), (14). That's ten out of fourteen: some substantial agreement, and maybe enough to work with.
That leaves us with some problems.
(5) is innocuous if it is read to leave room for inclusivism and is not meant to enshrine Substitutionary Atonement. Indeed, I read it as neutral on those points, given that Substitutionary Atonement could easily have been mentioned explcitly but was not, and inclusivism could easily have been ruled out by name so as to leave no question, but was not. So I'm fine with (5); good Anglican fudge! That's eleven out of fourteen: praise be to the good Lord and Savior.
(11) and (13) are just plain mean, committing GAFCONites to future strife and scandal:
We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration; this toys with denying the orders of those with whom GAFCONites have ongoing disagreements. In (13) we read "we reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed." The only way that the rejection promised in (13) is logically consistent with their allegiance to the formularies in (6) is if those with whom GAFCONites disagree are not really Christian and do not have churches except in name. Otherwise, they would be doing offense against the Body of Christ, putting their GAFCON allegiance before their allegiance to the
church catholic. Now, I have no evidence this inconsistency between (6) and (13) is intended--remember they are in the Communion in which they have said the Spirt providentially moves. That implies recognition of TEC and the ACC as Christian.
Thus, the inconsistency between (6) and (13) seems to be an instance of mere material, not formal heresy.
It should come as no surprise that GAFCON has--already--fallen into heresy, a heresy whereby they stand in contradiction of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. Getting the faith exactly right without some measure of epistemic humility is awfully hard. And note: this is why you should not fiddle around with novel rules and creeds. What we already have is more than enough. While they get their theology together in upcoming months/years, they are still welcome to worship with me at the Holy Altar. We are patient.
With great perplexity I come to (8):
We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.
This is a monumental ignoratio elenchii. Same sex unions are not marriages; acceptance of (8) is consistent with GC2003 and with much after. There are liberal clergy willing to bless SSUs and who are clear on SSUs being different from marriages. In fact, is not this what recently passed in the CoE with Father Dudley? If we are to take (8)--and GAFCON--seriously, then TEC is in compliance with (8)--as is the ACC. Are Communion conservatives so tolerant of late that they will let this equivocation slide? Perhaps the wording is not an accident, but is intended: meant to accomodate the CoE evangelicals who might be canonically bound to recognize civil unions of some sort.
Whatever: (8) is confused. To maintain (8) while continuing to hold TEC is at fault for moving to permit the blessing of SSUs and ordaining actively gay bishops is incoherent, immersing the entire controversy over GC2003 et al into a miasma. Again, this is why fiddling with novel confessions is silly: the convocation looks inept.
The controversy has shifted to dealing with borders and limits to bad behavior in the Anglican Communion: how long will GAFCONites persist in the heresy embodies in the conjunction of (6) and (13), insisting on catholicity with their lips while denying it in their works? That is why their still being in the Anglican Communion is important. If they are serious about the Creeds--and I believe at least some of them are--then they will eventually come around to respecting catholicity as their dream of schism fades.
Another GAFCON Update: 6/24
Poor Bishop or "Moderator" Duncan, who had addressed the GAFCON gathering as those who
recognize that the Reformation (Elizabethan) Settlement of Anglicanism has disintegrated. We know that we are at a turning point in Anglican history, a place where two roads diverge. One road is faithful to Jesus’ story. The other road is about some other story…The choice before us is a choice before all Anglicans. It is just as certainly a choice before the upcoming Lambeth Conference,
sounding a note open to, if not openly encouraging, a movement ending in full schism. He assailed "[t]he distortion of Anglicanism in the West – the deceit the Enemy has sown," namely "that Anglicanism should be the bridge between the Church and the world." Give him credit: Duncan seemed to mean it; he just received approval from the state of Pennsylvania for a new corporation, "the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh."
But while he assailed Anglicanism building a bridge to the world, his GAFCON comrade Nazir-Ali was busy extolling what sounds to me like correlationist, i.e. liberal, theology, saying
Translatability belongs to the very nature of Anglicanism. In the preface of the BCP and the Articles of Religion, every church has a responsibility to render the good news in terms of its culture.
If he keeps that up, he'll get an office at 815. Just another gaffe? Or a sign of theological incoherence accompanying the ambient political incoherence? Is our trouble as a communion rooted in accepting correlation at all, or do we rather need more of it?
Speaking of the dangers to Christianity of cultural immersion, I have to mention this press-conference exchange between Baxter, Akinola, Orombi and Jensen. There's capitulation rooted in prejudices, about which one has never bothered to attain a critical perspective:
Iain Baxter: You’re not aware of any who are in jail for being lesbian or gay?
Peter Aknola: I am not aware of any.
IB: But these are the laws in your countries.
PA: But where, give me an example?
IB: I can give you an example: one woman who has claimed asylum in the United Kingdom, she has applied for asylum, her name is Prossy, she is a Ugandan lesbian, she has been… first of all she was jailed, she was raped in the police station, before that she was marched for two miles naked through the streets of Uganda, the British government has accepted this, the fact that she was tortured, and have agreed this in her asylum application, but however they are saying she could be sent back safely to a different village in Uganda and she is appealing. That’s one example. The laws in your countries say that homosexual acts, actions are punishable by various rules. I don’t need to argue. Do you support these laws, or do you think they should be repealed?
PA: OK. Every community, every society, has its own standards of life. In ancient African societies we had what are called “taboos”, things you should not do, and if you break the taboos there are consequences. Alright, so in your Western society many of these have arisen but in some of our African societies many things have not arisen and this happens to be one of them. In fact the word in our language does not exist in our language. So if the practice is now found to be in our society it is of service to be against it. Alright, and to that extent what my understanding is, is that those that are responsible for law and order will want to prevent wholesale importation of foreign practices and traditions, that are not consistent with native standards, native way of life.So if you say it is good for you, it is not good for us …. If they say it is not right for our societies then it’s not right, and that’s it..
Cheap grace indeed: Akinola falling back on sheer moral relativism to excuse his participation in what he himself called "taboo," a relativism one would have thought incompatible with commitment to the Gospel.
Orombi sounds a different note, one even more confused. At first, sure, he seems to be merely agreeing with Akinola, adding that those oppressed by the law for their being homosexual are being moved back to proper godliness:
Can I just come back to say that, that’s an example given for my country. There’s very little influence to stop the legislation of a law, an institute, in practice by the church. The church’s practice is to preach, to proclaim, so that people who find themselves in a position where they go away from the word of God, the same word of God can bring them back to life.
But then he seems to flip out of the frying pan altogether:
I would be in trouble if I were to say to my people in Uganda that tomorrow I can officiate at a same-sex marriage in my church. First of all the church will be closed.. Two, I might even be fired from my job because the question they are going to ask me is “Have you not read the word of God? And teach us now.” Simply saying that the Christian faith that we practice, which was brought from the West, by the way, taught us what biblically sexuality is. We’ve embraced that faith, we are practicing that faith, and moving away from that faith would be a contradiction to what we have inherited.
He speaks--falsely, it seems to me--as if the Gospel and the moral obligations following from it are settled by what was brought from the West, or whether his church buildings will be closed, or even whether he would be out of a job. Incredible.
When the topic comes up again, Orombi simply sounds as if he has lost his grip on reality, prompting Jensen to jump in and say what neither Orombi nor Akinola could bring themselves to say:
RB: We’re not talking about freedom of expression, he was specifically referring to the use of torture and rape.
HO: I would not believe a thing like that is done in the public knowledge of the people of Uganda because the gay people who are Ugandans are citizens of the country and we would cherish the fact that we would want to send it our people. For some of those things probably you get information in England and we may not even get information, I don’t know how they get their information.
Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen: Can I add to that, because I think it needs to be said, on behalf of these brothers, if not by themselves, any violence against any person, is in Christian terms wrong....
In my view, Jensen's right to jettison Akinola's moral relativism and Orombi's mix of mercenary motives and flat-out denial and simply say the violence was wrong, period.
But it seems to me Jensen displays another type of cultural immersion, one First-Worlders have seen time and again in the polished equivocations of partisan press-conferences: the techne of the spin artist. It's not that there is anything wrong in the propositional content of his spoken paragraph; he's got serious polish:
I certainly have public condemned and will continue to publicly condemn any violence against any people and in particular gay and lesbian people. I am certain that this is, I understand, what Archbishop Orombi says and that is exactly the position and I am very glad that this opportunity has arisen for the question to be raised again because I thought it was not answered in the answers which were being given to the others side of the question. But I think I am right in speaking for all of us here and, indeed, if that were not the case I would certainly stand alone here and say it but I am sure I speak for all in saying that any such violence, any such behaviour within the prison system, for Christians of another variety, or whatever, is condemned by us.
He knew what needed to be said, and he said it and said it well--it's a perfectly formed and most likely sincerely felt bit. The problem is rather in the performative aspect of his utterace, which functions rather as a whitewash, as denial. There is sound evidence that Jensen in fact is not speaking for Akinola and Orombi. Maybe Akinola and Orombi are on pilgimage to a point where they will be able to sincerely speak what Jensen did, but there is reason to think they are not quite there with Jensen yet.
And that in itself is a grave problem; the future of the Anglican Communion, and the Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Church in Canada, and the Church of England to a large extent has been in the hands of those two--and their assorted ghostwriters.
It's been five years or so, and the Anglican right's leadership has not developed to the point where its members openly agree that violence against--and the political oppression of--gays is wrong. Jensen paraded his personal convictions at just the right moment; good for him, But it does not settle the issue. It is as if Jensen wove a story, a bit of narrative everyone would like to believe in because it would be so much nicer if it were true. But our really, really wishing we could count on Akinola and Orombi's moral convictions does not make it true that we can count on their moral convictions--indeed, Orombi seems to have tried to rationalize oppression. How many GAFCON leaders share their ambivalence? Is socking it to the Episcopal Church real good, and securing the private property of Minns' Virginia congregations on the side, that important? Surely not, surely not.
We should not let Jensen's skillful display distract us from what remains a very real problem in the Anglican Communion, a problem many suspected was there before GAFCON, and one which GAFCON has confirmed.
recognize that the Reformation (Elizabethan) Settlement of Anglicanism has disintegrated. We know that we are at a turning point in Anglican history, a place where two roads diverge. One road is faithful to Jesus’ story. The other road is about some other story…The choice before us is a choice before all Anglicans. It is just as certainly a choice before the upcoming Lambeth Conference,
sounding a note open to, if not openly encouraging, a movement ending in full schism. He assailed "[t]he distortion of Anglicanism in the West – the deceit the Enemy has sown," namely "that Anglicanism should be the bridge between the Church and the world." Give him credit: Duncan seemed to mean it; he just received approval from the state of Pennsylvania for a new corporation, "the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh."
But while he assailed Anglicanism building a bridge to the world, his GAFCON comrade Nazir-Ali was busy extolling what sounds to me like correlationist, i.e. liberal, theology, saying
Translatability belongs to the very nature of Anglicanism. In the preface of the BCP and the Articles of Religion, every church has a responsibility to render the good news in terms of its culture.
If he keeps that up, he'll get an office at 815. Just another gaffe? Or a sign of theological incoherence accompanying the ambient political incoherence? Is our trouble as a communion rooted in accepting correlation at all, or do we rather need more of it?
Speaking of the dangers to Christianity of cultural immersion, I have to mention this press-conference exchange between Baxter, Akinola, Orombi and Jensen. There's capitulation rooted in prejudices, about which one has never bothered to attain a critical perspective:
Iain Baxter: You’re not aware of any who are in jail for being lesbian or gay?
Peter Aknola: I am not aware of any.
IB: But these are the laws in your countries.
PA: But where, give me an example?
IB: I can give you an example: one woman who has claimed asylum in the United Kingdom, she has applied for asylum, her name is Prossy, she is a Ugandan lesbian, she has been… first of all she was jailed, she was raped in the police station, before that she was marched for two miles naked through the streets of Uganda, the British government has accepted this, the fact that she was tortured, and have agreed this in her asylum application, but however they are saying she could be sent back safely to a different village in Uganda and she is appealing. That’s one example. The laws in your countries say that homosexual acts, actions are punishable by various rules. I don’t need to argue. Do you support these laws, or do you think they should be repealed?
PA: OK. Every community, every society, has its own standards of life. In ancient African societies we had what are called “taboos”, things you should not do, and if you break the taboos there are consequences. Alright, so in your Western society many of these have arisen but in some of our African societies many things have not arisen and this happens to be one of them. In fact the word in our language does not exist in our language. So if the practice is now found to be in our society it is of service to be against it. Alright, and to that extent what my understanding is, is that those that are responsible for law and order will want to prevent wholesale importation of foreign practices and traditions, that are not consistent with native standards, native way of life.So if you say it is good for you, it is not good for us …. If they say it is not right for our societies then it’s not right, and that’s it..
Cheap grace indeed: Akinola falling back on sheer moral relativism to excuse his participation in what he himself called "taboo," a relativism one would have thought incompatible with commitment to the Gospel.
Orombi sounds a different note, one even more confused. At first, sure, he seems to be merely agreeing with Akinola, adding that those oppressed by the law for their being homosexual are being moved back to proper godliness:
Can I just come back to say that, that’s an example given for my country. There’s very little influence to stop the legislation of a law, an institute, in practice by the church. The church’s practice is to preach, to proclaim, so that people who find themselves in a position where they go away from the word of God, the same word of God can bring them back to life.
But then he seems to flip out of the frying pan altogether:
I would be in trouble if I were to say to my people in Uganda that tomorrow I can officiate at a same-sex marriage in my church. First of all the church will be closed.. Two, I might even be fired from my job because the question they are going to ask me is “Have you not read the word of God? And teach us now.” Simply saying that the Christian faith that we practice, which was brought from the West, by the way, taught us what biblically sexuality is. We’ve embraced that faith, we are practicing that faith, and moving away from that faith would be a contradiction to what we have inherited.
He speaks--falsely, it seems to me--as if the Gospel and the moral obligations following from it are settled by what was brought from the West, or whether his church buildings will be closed, or even whether he would be out of a job. Incredible.
When the topic comes up again, Orombi simply sounds as if he has lost his grip on reality, prompting Jensen to jump in and say what neither Orombi nor Akinola could bring themselves to say:
RB: We’re not talking about freedom of expression, he was specifically referring to the use of torture and rape.
HO: I would not believe a thing like that is done in the public knowledge of the people of Uganda because the gay people who are Ugandans are citizens of the country and we would cherish the fact that we would want to send it our people. For some of those things probably you get information in England and we may not even get information, I don’t know how they get their information.
Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen: Can I add to that, because I think it needs to be said, on behalf of these brothers, if not by themselves, any violence against any person, is in Christian terms wrong....
In my view, Jensen's right to jettison Akinola's moral relativism and Orombi's mix of mercenary motives and flat-out denial and simply say the violence was wrong, period.
But it seems to me Jensen displays another type of cultural immersion, one First-Worlders have seen time and again in the polished equivocations of partisan press-conferences: the techne of the spin artist. It's not that there is anything wrong in the propositional content of his spoken paragraph; he's got serious polish:
I certainly have public condemned and will continue to publicly condemn any violence against any people and in particular gay and lesbian people. I am certain that this is, I understand, what Archbishop Orombi says and that is exactly the position and I am very glad that this opportunity has arisen for the question to be raised again because I thought it was not answered in the answers which were being given to the others side of the question. But I think I am right in speaking for all of us here and, indeed, if that were not the case I would certainly stand alone here and say it but I am sure I speak for all in saying that any such violence, any such behaviour within the prison system, for Christians of another variety, or whatever, is condemned by us.
He knew what needed to be said, and he said it and said it well--it's a perfectly formed and most likely sincerely felt bit. The problem is rather in the performative aspect of his utterace, which functions rather as a whitewash, as denial. There is sound evidence that Jensen in fact is not speaking for Akinola and Orombi. Maybe Akinola and Orombi are on pilgimage to a point where they will be able to sincerely speak what Jensen did, but there is reason to think they are not quite there with Jensen yet.
And that in itself is a grave problem; the future of the Anglican Communion, and the Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Church in Canada, and the Church of England to a large extent has been in the hands of those two--and their assorted ghostwriters.
It's been five years or so, and the Anglican right's leadership has not developed to the point where its members openly agree that violence against--and the political oppression of--gays is wrong. Jensen paraded his personal convictions at just the right moment; good for him, But it does not settle the issue. It is as if Jensen wove a story, a bit of narrative everyone would like to believe in because it would be so much nicer if it were true. But our really, really wishing we could count on Akinola and Orombi's moral convictions does not make it true that we can count on their moral convictions--indeed, Orombi seems to have tried to rationalize oppression. How many GAFCON leaders share their ambivalence? Is socking it to the Episcopal Church real good, and securing the private property of Minns' Virginia congregations on the side, that important? Surely not, surely not.
We should not let Jensen's skillful display distract us from what remains a very real problem in the Anglican Communion, a problem many suspected was there before GAFCON, and one which GAFCON has confirmed.
GAFCON update
From GAFCON's website:
Akinola also emphasised that GAFCON is not going to break away from the Anglican Communion. “We have no other place to go, nor is it our intention to start another church.”
Who really knows what will actually unfold; a break could still come to pass. "The spirit is willing" but Akinola's comment, and the GAFCON site's giving that comment such high profile, seem to confirm suspicion that our Separatist brothers and sisters have lost momentum. If so, why? I do not suppose rhetoric of separation was insincere. Rather, if indeed the momentum for separation has waned, it seems the prospective leaders of the anticipated separation must have realized they held "losing hands": the costs of separation at this time outweighed the benefits. Perhaps not enough English--and American--evangelicals were on board.
Anyhow, failure to separate is dangerous to GAFCON partisans, inasmuch as a large measure of their strength comes from those who expected a separation now: true blue believers. Delay might disappoint them and further weaken the GAFCON faction--if the disappointed separatists are permitted to disengage from the drama of the Anglican Communion.
Thus, it seems to me that the leaders of the GAFCON faction will have an incentive to keep tension and conflict going. That will mean more negative hyperbole, more efforts to seduce rectors and bishops, more attempts to prise away parishes and dioceses amidst high-profile, international purple events: more of the same, at least as shrill if not even more urgent. And it will mean, perhaps, the GAFCON faction will have an incentive to participate at the Communion level in the formation of a covenant. I would not be surprised to see those who can still attend Lambeth with street credibility intact do so. To be brief, the survival of the AC does not mean peace in our time.
Akinola also emphasised that GAFCON is not going to break away from the Anglican Communion. “We have no other place to go, nor is it our intention to start another church.”
Who really knows what will actually unfold; a break could still come to pass. "The spirit is willing" but Akinola's comment, and the GAFCON site's giving that comment such high profile, seem to confirm suspicion that our Separatist brothers and sisters have lost momentum. If so, why? I do not suppose rhetoric of separation was insincere. Rather, if indeed the momentum for separation has waned, it seems the prospective leaders of the anticipated separation must have realized they held "losing hands": the costs of separation at this time outweighed the benefits. Perhaps not enough English--and American--evangelicals were on board.
Anyhow, failure to separate is dangerous to GAFCON partisans, inasmuch as a large measure of their strength comes from those who expected a separation now: true blue believers. Delay might disappoint them and further weaken the GAFCON faction--if the disappointed separatists are permitted to disengage from the drama of the Anglican Communion.
Thus, it seems to me that the leaders of the GAFCON faction will have an incentive to keep tension and conflict going. That will mean more negative hyperbole, more efforts to seduce rectors and bishops, more attempts to prise away parishes and dioceses amidst high-profile, international purple events: more of the same, at least as shrill if not even more urgent. And it will mean, perhaps, the GAFCON faction will have an incentive to participate at the Communion level in the formation of a covenant. I would not be surprised to see those who can still attend Lambeth with street credibility intact do so. To be brief, the survival of the AC does not mean peace in our time.
A SPREADing Weakness among the Separatist Faction?
Something I recently noticed in the Anglican alphabet soup: SPREAD. Its call for a new Anglican communion disjoint from that based in Canterbury has gathered attention, both supportive at SFiF and critical at the ACI. I have little to add to Radner's excellent reply on behalf of the ACI; anyone taking the covenant project seriously will likely look askance at calls for pre-emptive schism.
Rather, I want to speculate--and it is mere speculation-- about what SPREAD might hope to accomplish with its acerbic hyperbole, coming on the eve of GAFCON. First, it seems to me SPREAD's criticism of Archbishop Williams will not garner much support outside an already committed base of extremist Separatists. In fact, its critique of Williams sounds so shrill it is more likely to drive the curious away than bring them into SPREAD's fold. That shrillness and its attendant consequences seem intentional, not accidental. Why would anyone intend to adopt a divisive, shrill tone?
Well, second, Anglican critics of TEC and the ACC are already divided among themselves. Some wish to work for a covenant, others wish to separate now. Those working for a covenant have the advantage of working with the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that advantage is hardly negligible.
Given the first two points, it follows SPREAD's approach is unlikely to gather new support from conservatives who wish to work for a covenant: witness Radner's reaction. Yet, SPREAD's acerbic tone is not entirely without positive effect for them. It seems, third, that critical hyperbole has become an Anglican trope of late, not just a curiousity at the SPREAD site, just because it has the effect of energizing the base. How else to break up parishes, fracture dioceses, fragment provinces, and split the Communion when most of the people occupying these levels in the church would otherwise find a way to get along? The base must be made to believe the other guys are not just mistaken or wrong, but malevolent and evil. The aim is not to bring new folks inside, but to make sure the folks already inside stay inside.
But why should SPREAD be so concerned to energize its base in such a costly manner? It just may be its base is losing its ferfor for separation--that is my fourth and final point, to which the first three lead. SPREAD's appearance is a sign of weakness, and in particular a sign of a willingness at GAFCON to stay within the AC. On the face of it, it would be no surprise if GAFCON's Separatists got "cold feet": the moderation of the covenant proposal recommends itself, and it is only prudent to examine alternative courses of action with judicious circumspection. Their base is willing to compromise and refrain from the requisite leap; they must be "reminded" of how awful the Anglican Communion and Williams, TEC and the ACC really are. Restraint is precisely what extreme Separatists behind GAFCON do not want: in effect, nothing happens except the beginning of another ten year wait for the next Lambeth, during which time Separatists will have to find some way of retaining their momentum.
Rather, I want to speculate--and it is mere speculation-- about what SPREAD might hope to accomplish with its acerbic hyperbole, coming on the eve of GAFCON. First, it seems to me SPREAD's criticism of Archbishop Williams will not garner much support outside an already committed base of extremist Separatists. In fact, its critique of Williams sounds so shrill it is more likely to drive the curious away than bring them into SPREAD's fold. That shrillness and its attendant consequences seem intentional, not accidental. Why would anyone intend to adopt a divisive, shrill tone?
Well, second, Anglican critics of TEC and the ACC are already divided among themselves. Some wish to work for a covenant, others wish to separate now. Those working for a covenant have the advantage of working with the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that advantage is hardly negligible.
Given the first two points, it follows SPREAD's approach is unlikely to gather new support from conservatives who wish to work for a covenant: witness Radner's reaction. Yet, SPREAD's acerbic tone is not entirely without positive effect for them. It seems, third, that critical hyperbole has become an Anglican trope of late, not just a curiousity at the SPREAD site, just because it has the effect of energizing the base. How else to break up parishes, fracture dioceses, fragment provinces, and split the Communion when most of the people occupying these levels in the church would otherwise find a way to get along? The base must be made to believe the other guys are not just mistaken or wrong, but malevolent and evil. The aim is not to bring new folks inside, but to make sure the folks already inside stay inside.
But why should SPREAD be so concerned to energize its base in such a costly manner? It just may be its base is losing its ferfor for separation--that is my fourth and final point, to which the first three lead. SPREAD's appearance is a sign of weakness, and in particular a sign of a willingness at GAFCON to stay within the AC. On the face of it, it would be no surprise if GAFCON's Separatists got "cold feet": the moderation of the covenant proposal recommends itself, and it is only prudent to examine alternative courses of action with judicious circumspection. Their base is willing to compromise and refrain from the requisite leap; they must be "reminded" of how awful the Anglican Communion and Williams, TEC and the ACC really are. Restraint is precisely what extreme Separatists behind GAFCON do not want: in effect, nothing happens except the beginning of another ten year wait for the next Lambeth, during which time Separatists will have to find some way of retaining their momentum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)