Well, GAFCON certainly got the internet buzzing with rage and outrage.
I have been pretty disappointed with Tom Wright's responses though. They are full of cheap shots, over -heated rhetoric and unsubstantiated accusations about the motives of those responsible. It is pretty clear that for him, the real villains of the piece are the conservative evangelicals in England, backed by the Archbishop of Sydney apparently, who don't share his optimistic view of the state of the CofE. He implies that the real motive for the whole thing is a sinister power agenda. So, his message is: we don't want GAFCON in England, we don't need it. The situation here (the UK) is not the same (he argues) as in the USA. The group pushing for this is very small, he keeps saying. So, why is he so worried?
I am curious as to why he takes such an isolationist view all of sudden. Surely, if there is such a thing as the Anglican Communion, the problem in the American church necessarily involves the UK church. At present, he argues, the CofE is not a church that has authorised unscriptural practices - granted. But is he so naive as to think that this agenda will not be pursued with full vigour in the next few years? Is the day when the CofE will most certainly authorise unscriptural sexual ethics really so far away?
And if you read John Richardson's report of Peter Jensen's speech in London, you will get the feeling that Tom has got the wrong end of the pineapple. Are we talking about the same speech? The one that says:
You have to find English solutions to English problems. This is not a ‘Cargo Cult’ where the Americans are going to bring the solution.
Andrew Goddard, on the other hand, seems much more measured and reasonable.
16 comments:
Thanks for the link to the Goddard article - these are the discussions that have to have take place. I'm glad GAFCON has put them on the agenda.
I'd be more disappointed with Tom Wright's response if it was suprising.
Tom Wright often seems to be concerned that his evangelical credentials are not always recognized. If he wrote less intemperately, he might find a change of mood. Bp Michael Nazir Ali was also not automatically regarded as one of the good guys five years ago. It is his words and actions which have brought about a change of attitude.
Of course you probably need to point out that you are related to the person being criticised.
OK!
I am indeed related to the person criticised.
It ought to be remembered that NTW labelled the GAFCONites 'super-apostles', too.
NOt very helpful.
The article I linked to has some interesting concessions about the Windsor process and how it is flawed.
Thanks for the article, Michael.
A few questions, if I may:
Firstly, why do you think that this movement is occurring now? Why not with the advent of female bishops, or with the appointment of Bishop Spong? I recognise that there was disquiet over those events, but why is homosexuality the critical mass?
I'd suggest that there has been a lot of rhetoric on both sides. Are there comments of those critical of GAFCON you believe to be more measured?
Well, I don't think it is because this is because of a kind of seething homophobia (which is what some suggest). And I would say, quite: why not with these other issues? The creeping tide of liberalism/revisionism has led to this mess because we haven't stood against it until now.
A number of factors come into play here:
1 - in Anglican polity it is at the level of bishops that churches relate. With Spong, it was in fact the case that many dioceses refused to have him speak or to endorse him. However, he was seen by many as an aberrant individual. But for a diocese and indeed a whole province to endorse Gene Robinson was actually to change the rules that supposedly bind us together.
2 - with the bishop in a homosexual relationship, the consensus has been strong that this is an unscriptural development. That consensus has not been found to the same degree with female bishops. Though, it ought to be said, there is still the potential for this to be a divisive issue as well.
3- the missionary language of the US church is quite clear: they hope that the rest of us will change too. So, it can't really be a case of live and let live on this one.
Oh, and for more measured comments that are critical of GAFCON, see the Andrew Goddard piece I linked to in the blog post.
<SCOLD>Come on gentlemen, you are better than this. From where Tom is standing --- as a Windsor author and someone who has expended time and effort (and endured opprobium) defending the conservative position over against developments in North America, and seeking a non-revolutionary way forward --- his ox is being gored by GAFCON. Not to mention the fact that, as an evangelical bishop, he might reasonably take offence at the idea that he needs to be "recognised" by a new Primates' Council as being among "confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and congregations".
As regards Sydney, and it pains me to make such an obvious point, even fifteen years ago it was pretty well established here that it was important to disagree with him. More important, at least, than having read his books (which I did) or having some independent knowledge of (say) intertestamental literature (which I did not). The disrespect to his credentials goes back a long way.
Should he rise above such slights, and be more eirenic? Probably. Should the criticism be coming from people themselves aligned with GAFCON's approach? Um, probably not.</SCOLD>
More conventional comments: "isolationist" is unfair as a reading of his remarks, I think; and as for the prospect of unscriptural sexual ethics being authorised in the CofE in the near future, don't we have reason to suppose that NTW will be right in the firing line on that one? This, at the very least, makes him entitled to a view on the way forward in the matter. And as for the fact that he acknowledges the limitations of Windsor: doesn't this add to, as opposed to subtract from, the credibility of his other statements and judgements?
None of this makes him right, any more than the sheer shibboleth-ness of a lot of anti-Wright talk in this town (at least, back in the day) made his positions correct. But I am going to need persuading that it is helpful at this point to embark on a criticism of his tone. Surely this is a matter for his friends?
And now: I temporarily, for this thread only, break my moritorium on commenting on other people with the surname "Jensen" on this blog. (Because: well, I think it's just bad manners in general. But the point has been explicitly raised up-list.) I think I have expressed my personal regard for Peter Jensen, of almost twenty years' standing, enough times in other settings. And yes, I have read John's summary of the discussion at All Souls'. Yet quoting from it now,
"GAFCON is a very Anglican answer — a new set of instruments of unity! They were not ‘self-appointed’, they were God-appointed, from looking at the Word of God and seeing what they needed to do."
I'm sorry, but it is reasonable for someone outside the group described to be alarmed by this. If my best friend said this, I would be alarmed by it. That doesn't make it wrong --- and it certainly does not mean that it was meant in any sinister sense --- but if you can't at least see why someone else inhabiting the same historical moment, but outside the group so named, might be worried by this kind of talk ... well, you're not trying hard enough.
Well, Bruce I guess I would have to plead in my defence that I personally have never traded in the kind of attack of Wright that you read sometimes on bulletin boards. I have never been a wild enthusiast; but I have been a quiet and appreciative reader of his over the years. So, I step out of the shadows for once because here and in other places I think the great man has acted rather strangely, nay, poorly. I think you are right to see that the Windsor process has now been rather deflated - but the wanton, two-faced and hypocritical disregard for it by the TEC bishops ensured that long ago.
I don't see why you should find the comment from PFJ particularly alarming: he wasn't claiming a special anointing of the Spirit, only that he was trying to be answerable to the word of God. And he was reply to the charge of Rowan Williams (or some lackey who wrote his piece for him) that the GAFCON group was self-appointed.
Michael as to Wright, I take your point about your own attitude, but our earlier discussion off-list about the view of Sydney from the outside, and unofficial but allegedly "official" positions, is relevant here. Part of the problem about turning some question into a shibboleth is that it makes it difficult to discuss according to its own nature. Another problem is that it raises a question over just about any position one might take. If I express a Wrightean opinion in public, or admiration for NTW, am I doing just that or am I flying a flag? If I elsewhere state that (despite my general regard) I disagree with some particular thing Wright says, is that my actual view or am I trying to tack politically? I think it's genuinely hard to know, and that pointing to one's intention does not necessarily help.
I take my time on this point in the hope that the following will not be taken the wrong way: I still think it's not the time or the place for you to be commenting on Wright's comportment, your general appreciation notwithstanding. And if that seems restrictive and suspicious ... well, I think that's part of why it was always wrong to turn opposition to NTW into a shibboleth. I understand that it wasn't you that did that, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't done, or that you and I aren't bound up in it.
As to Windsor, I take your point to be that GAFCON is not stabbing it in the back (or the front) because TEC has already killed it; and that GAFCON is just moving the corpse out of its way. Yes? I put it to you that that is a political judgement on which people can reasonably disagree, and that one's agenda is relevant here. I think GAFCON is deeply unfortunate, not least because it makes it an order of magnitude more difficult (maybe impossible) for what's left of Windsor to muddle forward. But since Windsor methods are to my taste, and GAFCON methods are not, I would think that, wouldn't I? And I would kid myself about the phenomena in that manner. But this argument cuts both ways.
As to "self-selected": I know that this is not the Council's self-understanding, and I don't expect Peter to like the statement, and I don't expect anyone on board with GAFCON to like it either. But I do claim that it qualifies as fair comment, and if you don't see that this is (at the very least) what this aspect of GAFCON can look like from the outside, then sorry, but I think that's unworldly. (Yes, I know, this is me saying this.)
And as to taking alarm: if my best friend said in regard to some stance, that he was trying to be answerable to the word of God (not quite the language he'd use, but let that pass), I would take that on board. If he said that this made him God-appointed, I would not regard that as the same kind of statement, and yes, I would take alarm, not least if the stance involved had a political dimension. I don't ask you to agree with the judgement in this case: only to see that it at least looks reasonable from over here. And I want to stop short of offering advice on tactics and presentation: since I disagree with the aim, it would be presumptuous of me to offer advice on carrying it forward.
While it seems fairly clear that TEC has grossly overstepped the mark in various respects, despite my sympathy for the parish of St John's Shaughnessy (which I gather has been treated abominably) it isn't quite clear to me that Canada warrants like treatment to the US.
How does British Columbian Canon Law compare to ours? On the basis of perhaps ill-founded speculation, I doubt it'd differ all that much.
Hey MPJ,
how will today;s decision by the General Synod affect evangelicals and the church more widely in England?
I wouldn't have thought it would actually make much difference in the short term. It would be important for conservative evangelicals not to panic, I think.
You go Bruce! Say hi to (sister) Sue for me when you have a chance.
(To o.s.o.:) Thanks. And certainly, I'll say hi.
Bruce has got a point. If you play for Australia, you can't complain about other teams' sledging - even if you are Stuart Clark.
Post a Comment