Why are UK teenage killings down?

Having been aware of the issue for some time, I was intrigued to see a report yesterday on the BBC website that the murder rate amongst teenagers has shown a sudden and dramatic drop. The report begins as follows:

The number of teenagers killed violently in the UK has fallen by 30% in one year, BBC research has found.

The BBC teen homicide database, which records murder and manslaughter cases, shows 51 10 to 19-year olds lost their lives in 2009 compared with 72 in 2008.

Most 2009 victims were male and half of all those killed were stabbed. Twelve were beaten and two were shot.

Police say anti-knife crime tactics explain the drop, but critics argue it is too early to make such conclusions.

Back in June I blogged about a possible increase in the number of teenagers committing murder. This article was the result of a hunch, based initially (as it happens) on reports from the BBC news website. Later in the year, however, I was able to obtain proper figures which showed a definite increase in the rate of teenagers convicted of murder, going back to some time in the mid 1990s. In many cases, the victims of these teenage murderers are also themselves teenagers. Hence the decline in teenage murders will probably also indicate a decline in teenage murderers.

Again based on the absence of news reports, I had begun to suspect that the number of murders involving teenagers had indeed declined this year, so this story is no great surprise. Indeed, it must be welcomed. As it indicates, however, there are a number of unanswered questions.

One is whether or not the decline will be sustained. The chart I produced from the figures supplied shows occasional dips as well as a gradual rise in the number of teenagers convicted of murder. However, it must be pointed out that murders by teenagers sometimes involve multiple perpetrators —ie they are instances of gang attacks —and so it might only take one or two fewer killings to produce a significant drop in the number of killers. Both the dips and the rises on this chart may be affected by this factor. By contrast, a large drop in the number of murders would, on the face of it, seem more significant, since single incidents rarely involve more than one victim.

The second question, posed in the BBC article itself, is what might have caused a decline. The police and Home Office point (unsurprisingly) to their own initiatives. Others suggest the informal counselling done by staff in hospital A and E departments.

For my own part, I wonder if the decline has been caused, actually, by teenagers. Young people have always had their own, informal but powerful, sub-culture, created by the things in which they take an interest —games, fashions, TV programmes, the internet and so on. People of my age well remember the seaside clashes of Mods and Rockers back in the ’60s. Then came the ‘Hippy’ movement and Flower Power. The fashions came and went, shaped by the trend-makers, but dependent, ultimately, on the young people themselves.

It would be no surprise to me if the teenage community simply decided it had had enough of violence —at least at the level sufficient to result in someone’s death. Maybe all those ‘shrines’ on Facebook and Myspace have had an effect. There is nothing quite as capable of bringing an end to a trend amongst young people as negative peer pressure. Certainly it would be worth investigating wether this might be so. I am much less easily convinced that it has been the result of anything said or done by adult ‘officialdom’!

Then there is the third, related, question, which is what caused (or, maybe, is still causing) the nevertheless high rate of these killings, for behind the apparent decrease is certainly a previous increase, as the figures show. Was this, too, a ‘fashion’, and if so, what drove it? Just as importantly, could it have been ‘nipped in the bud’ at an early stage?

Any decline in violence must be welcomed, but we should remember that there is still a subculture out there which, I suspect, would horrify most of us from more sheltered backgrounds.

John Richardson
24 December 2009

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

GAFCON 'petitions' passing 1,000 mark

The two petitions for individuals to sign, showing support for the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration, which were set up following the meeting at All Souls Langham Place on July 1st are now both passing the 1,000 mark.

One petition is for English residents (though a handful of signatories clearly haven't read the instructions), the other is for those outside England.

There is a third petition for organizations, including Parochial Church Councils, who have passed a motion wording support for the Declaration and Statement, which has collected nine signatures so far. These are:

St John's Lindow PCC, Cheshire
All Saints Little Shelford PCC, Cambridgeshire
St George's Becontree PCC, Essex
Christ Episcopal Church Denver, USA
Iglesia Cristo del Mar PV Jalisco Mx, USA
Baton Rouge Area Anglican Fellowship, USA
Little Brothers of the Trinity, USA
Elswick Parish Church, Newcastle Upon Tyne
ACN/FIFNA, USA

The petitions may be found at the links below. If you haven't done so, please sign them and forward to your friends:

Individuals in solidarity with the GAFCON Jerusalem Statement and Declaration (English residents)

Individuals living outside England in solidarity with the GAFCON Jerusalem Statement and Declaration

Anglican groups and organizations in solidarity with the GAFCON Jerusalem Statement and Declaration


When posting a comment please give your full name and location.

England bypassed. Global Communion isolated.

In the wake of Global Anglican Future Conference in Jerusalem and the post-GAFCON meeting at All Souls Church on Monday two things are becoming clear about the situation as it affects us here in England.

The first is that there is no clear way ahead for GAFCON supporters and sympathizers within England itself.

The second is that in the long term it probably doesn’t matter.

The absence of a clear way ahead is due to there being no post-GAFCON follow up group in England itself. Nor does there appear to be any coordinated strategy for the future. Some have seen the online petitions (posted in my name) as part of such a strategy. In fact, the idea of posting them came about during Tuesday’s gathering, and the basic wording was devised during a coffee break. (My involvement was having the experience and a GoPetition account to do it quickly).

They are there to encourage people to show their commitment, individually and as organizations, to GAFCON principles. And this itself may send important signals, both to supporters and the wider institution. There is, however, no ‘next step’. There is no commitment to further action, nor is there, as yet, any intention to follow up signatories with requests or suggestions.

All this will, no doubt, come as a surprise to some. Prior to, and even following, Tuesday’s meeting in London there was much talk of ‘breakaway groups’, ‘takeover bids’ and the like. Conspiracy seemed to be in the air.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The earliest it seems that any post-GAFCON collective action is scheduled is a meeting being organized by the Church of England Evangelical Council, titled Shaping the Future: Anglican evangelicalism post Lambeth and Gafcon. This, however, will not happen until mid-November, some four and a half months away.

The Reform Council is meeting in September, and may also be making proposals. But then it may not. Nothing is clear on that front.

Meanwhile, Monday’s vote in General Synod about the way ahead on women bishops hangs over the entire English picture. Whatever is decided, it is that which is likely to focus English minds for the next few months, not how to continue what GAFCON has started.

In the meeting at All Souls, Archbishop Peter Jensen challenged the attendees about the need to find ‘English solutions to English problems’. But in reality part of the English problem is precisely that we cannot find solutions to our problems. The content of Liberal theology is diminished, the impact of Liberal churches is less than it once was. But, as is shown by the paranoid reactions of commentators to a possible shift in the balance of power, the Church of England is not in the hands of Evangelicals, let alone Conservatives and ‘fundamentalists’.

On the contrary, its ethos is resolutely ‘middle of the road’ Liberal-Catholic. It is Open, not Conservative, Evangelicals who provide the recruiting ground for diocesan advisors and helpers. It is Liberal, not Conservative, theology which dominates the part-time and post-ordination training courses. It is centrist, not ‘extremist’ clergy who are given preferment as suffragan and diocesan bishops, cathedral deans and archdeacons.

The sheer fact that approval is almost certain to be given in the next twenty-fours hours for women to be consecrated as bishops shows that the Church of England is not what opponents of GAFCON fear it may become. The equal fact that there is nothing in the pipeline that will truly threaten this hegemony means it is likely to stay this way for some while to come.

And yet the security of the current English establishment, and the lack of any apparent threat to this security, does not really matter.

Many years ago a Dutch friend of mine told me about a cartoon which expressed what they thought about the English attitude: an English newspaper headline read, “Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off.”

In the same way, we have seen English bishops, and indeed Archbishops, complaining that GAFCON has not shown due regard for Anglo-centric structures and personalities — that they, and not ‘self-appointed’ individuals and bodies, have the right to define the terms by which Anglicanism is constituted and operates.

Yet that is clearly now no longer the case. Significant sections of the Anglican Communion, representing hundreds of dioceses and millions of members have acted as they have chosen to act — just as, of course, in the past the North American branches of Anglicanism have acted according to their own agenda and in general disregard for the rest of the Communion.

The one does not justify the other. It is simply that just as England was previously powerless to undo what happened in the USA and Canada (but showed due deference), so now (although it is unwilling to defer to them) it cannot undo, or prevent further, actions by other parts of the Communion.

In a sense, Theo Hobson is right when he complains in an article in The Spectator that by emphasising the Anglican Communion, ABp Rowan Williams has made the Church of England in this country hostage to other influences than those which have hitherto dominated the English scene. He is wrong only in his pessimistic assumption that things will necessarily change very quickly here.

In fact, it seems very unlikely that the Church of England in England will do much more than muddle along as it has done since the winds of change began to blow through our society after World War Two. We still have enough ‘family silver’ to be able to fund decline for decades. We still have bishops in the House of Lords and a place in the formal functions of the nation. We still bury our parishioners, though we baptize few and marry even fewer.

The Liberal establishment is likely to remain just that. The Evangelicals will continue to fight amongst themselves and achieve nothing politically, although they will remain committed to the gospel and effective ministry at a local level. In fact, the only real ‘threat’ to the Church of England continuing the same way is whatever injuries it manages to inflict on itself over women bishops tomorrow.

The Global Anglican Communion will thus continue to be ‘cut off’ from the Church of England. It may be decades before we come to see that whilst we retain the affection of some of our erstwhile children, and the clamour for attention from others, it is we who are now powerless and isolated.

John Richardson
6 July 2008

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

If I were a Patron

What can be done to halt the Liberal drift of the Church of England identified at the post-GAFCON gathering at All Souls Langham place on the 1^st July?

The answer is not “Sign a petition in support of the GAFCON principles,” although I suggest you do exactly that in a moment by heading here (non English residents head here).

The problem with the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration, is that it declares what every minister working for the Church of England is required to declare on their appointment. The core of our faith, according to the Jerusalem Statement, is (with the exception of two words) exactly the same as that found in Canon A5 of the Church of England:

The doctrine of the Church [of England] 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.

Moreover, every Anglican minister affirms at their appointment their commitment to this doctrine:

I, A B ... declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness ... (The Declaration of Assent)

Isn’t that fantastic? Every Anglican minister believes what is in the Bible, and the developments and clarifications of the biblical witness (such as the doctrine of the Trinity or of the one sacrifice for sin made by Christ on the cross) found in the Creeds and our foundational liturgy.

Well, it would be fantastic if it were true, but it isn’t! The fact is that very many of our ministers doubt great swathes of what is stated in the Prayer Book the Articles and the Creeds, not least because, like the head of the Church of Ireland, their view of Scripture is that sometimes it is right and sometimes, since it is the work of human authors, it is wrong.

And far from being loyal to the ‘inheritance of faith’, as they say they do in the Declaration of Assent, they submit, finally, to their own private judgement.

As the saying goes, not many churchgoers know that, though if they go here, here and here they can read the results of a 2002 survey which paint an alarming picture.

But to go back to our opening question, what can be done? One thing is to use the opportunities presented by being the patron of a parish, or one of the parish representatives, when a vacancy occurs.

A friend of mine involved in patronage work recently asked me what questions he should put during interviews. I said there should be at least one straightforward doctrinal question — a simple question that invites a straight answer. “But,” I said, “Don’t ask them if they believe in the resurrection. Everyone will say ‘yes’ to that. Ask them whether they believe in the Virgin birth.”

It is surely a fair question. I cannot find the quotation, but I seem to remember ABp John Sentamu chiding conservatives over their attitude to divisions in the Anglican Communion by observing that it wasn’t as if fundamental doctrines, such as the resurrection or the virgin birth, were being denied.

But they are. In fact, my friend has followed my advice, and sure enough candidate after candidate openly admits that the Virgin birth is something they do not accept.

Now it might be objected, isn’t the Virgin birth problematic and can we act as if everything hinged on this one thing? And of course it is problematic — so is someone rising from the dead. But the issue is more complex than simply ‘is this believed, or believable’.

The fact is that the Church of England constantly makes confessional statements: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty ...”, “I ... declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures.”

It is not so much that all doctrine stands or falls on this one issue as that where there is one problem there may well be others — see the recent fate of Ray Lewis.

The Liberal drift of the Church of England is not irresistible. If directors of ordinands, or bishops or, yes, patrons and parish representatives, asked a few basic questions at the right time, they might at least discover who was likely to be truly committed to the ‘inheritance of faith’ and who is not. And then they might act accordingly.

John Richardson

5 July 2008

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

Two new GAFCON petitions

The petition for English PCCs and other organizations wishing to express solidarity with GAFCON is now available online here.

Due to several non-English residents wishing to sign the petition for individuals, a 'Global' petition is now available here.

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

GAFCON petition for individuals

Following today’s meetings at All Souls Langham Place, a petition is available for signature online here for those individuals within the Church of England in England who wish to indicate their solidarity with the GAFCON movement. The wording of the petition is,

"I stand in solidarity with the Jerusalem Declaration and Statement on the Global Anglican Future."

The Jerusalem Declaration and Statement may be read here.

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

Post-GAFCON at All Souls, 6: ABp Peter Jensen

GAFCON and England, summary notes by John Richardson

What would you do? What we have spoken about is not theory for some people. What would I do?

Take the example of David Short in Canada when it became clear what the Bishop would do. What would you do? Would you stand or comply? It is not as easy as it may sound.

You may say to yourself, ‘Perhaps I have not read the Bible properly on human sexuality.’ Or, ‘Perhaps this is not a first order issue of the gospel, we can still preach Christ as Lord.’ Or you could say, ‘The evangelical tactic is parish ministry. Why drag my parish into a fight we cannot win which will sap our money and energy instead of winning people for the Lord?’

They are all powerful reasons not to march out with David Short and Jim Packer. Better perhaps to keep our heads down and get on with work in our parishes. As Packer, Short and others left, you knew they would be attacked, they would have the culture against them and they would have the church against them.

They moved out. They have been in contention for five years — you will have stayed in your parish and got on with ministry, wondering if the Bible is clear.

First, brothers and sisters, the Bible is clear and the Liberals know it is clear.

Secondly, this is crucial. Sexual immorality leads you outside the kingdom of God, just as does greed. It is not a second-order issue.

Thirdly, if you continue in fellowship you are endorsing the lie and are complicit in it.

Fourthly, persecution and vilification is part of the gospel.

Why has this become the trigger? Is it because we are obsessed with sex?

Yes. We are and our community is. We have worshipped sex as an idol and we take our identity from our sexual natures.

It has become the touchstone because this is the nature of the world we live in, and this is, in itself, a tremendous symbol which enacts revisionist theology.

Things may chug along for a number of years, but in the end you yourself have to make a statement. You become involved. The blessing of same-sex unions is the enactment of a whole theological system.

In Nairobi 16 men sat in a room planning GAFCON. We agreed it would happen, but asked what it would be about. The answer was that we must be clear that the gospel of Jesus Christ is a transforming gospel, which does not leave you where you are — which is what Liberalism does in simply affirming you. The testimony matters. We want to hear you are committed to the path of light and repentance.

The Africans look at us and say, ‘You say you have the gospel, but what is the evidence that you have the gospel?’

If we go this way, the Times, Guardian, BBC, Daily Mail will be against us. We could choose a different issue. But the choice is not ours. This is the choice that has been landed on your plate. If you will not stand on this issue you will never stand. You may have preferred to do it on the Trinity, but this is what incarnates the theology that lies behind the action.

We would not have chosen to fight on this ground, but that is often the way.

This may not be where you are up to yet in England, but you do not live in a time of peace.

Discerning the times: a revisionist trajectory has been clear for some time, including on sexuality. In 1998 there was a terrific battle at the Lambeth Conference. The crucial year, though, is 2003 when the revisionists put a new fact on the table. The Americans took a risk, but it was a tremendous strategic blunder which has woken the sleeping giant of evangelicalism and orthodoxy.

What is the revisionist strategy? It is to buy time. Thirty years ago we were all clear about chastity before and outside marriage. If you now declare that teaching, you are treated as a complete idiot. The revisionists think the Africans are just twenty or thirty years behind us, thanks to the communications revolution. The people in Africa will catch up and that is why it is vital to keep delaying.

The revisionists will concentrate on theological education and hermeneutics. If they can be influenced here, they will catch up with the rest of us. The revisionist strategy is to wait for people to catch up.

That strategy will work. Who would have thought we would get to where we are on divorce and remarriage or on fornication? The strategy will work unless we act.

So, we must be patient. It has been right to listen, to negotiate, not to react too suddenly. Love is right also, but five years is a long time when you are a parish or rector under pressure.

Secondly, pastoring: we have to take care of those Christians who are caught in dioceses, parishes and churches who are faithful but find themselves caught in revisionist situations. If we do not care for them, who will? What is David Short to do? What are we to do for him?

I would rather not be involved in GAFCON. I have a big job to do at home. But I cannot sit still and watch faithful Anglican Christians suffer and remain silent [applause].

The second fact on the table, following 2003, is crossing boundaries. People will do this. It is not always welcome. It should only be done in emergencies. But we now have to regard the gospel as more sacred than human boundaries. That is irreversible, and nothing that happens at Lambeth is going to stop it.

The third element of our strategy is principled action. We need principled care.

So far, the crossing of the boundaries has been disorganised, depending on people prepared to do it. It has taken courage from Greg Venables, who has suffered abuse and rejection. He has acted for the gospel. What GAFCON represents is that there will be principled care. None of the instruments of the communion has been able to help David Short and Jim Packer. 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.

They are Primates — very senior leaders of our denomination, with huge responsibilities in their own churches. They don’t need to do it, but they are prepared to do it for Western Christians who have lost the plot. Thank you to the Primates [applause].

GAFCON will help in emergency cases, not trivial cases.

This is also about the preservation of the gospel — and the Africans and Asians will come under this same pressure through Western theological education. GAFCON is going to say no to this educational agenda for the promotion and protection of the gospel globally.

Order will be created out of the confusion that now exists.

The last two weeks have been two of the most extraordinary in my life. What we are dealing with here is not a split, but a movement possibly as significant as the Evangelical Revival, or even the Anglo-Catholic movement if you prefer, and it may bring Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics together [applause].

What about England? You are bounded by Ireland, Scotland and Wales — what about them?

You have to find English solutions to English problems. This is not a ‘Cargo Cult’ where the Americans are going to bring the solution.

First, England gave us the Bible and the gospel — thank you. We look to you, still! We look to you for leadership in obedience to the Bible and sacrifice for the gospel. If England can be what England was, what a power would be released in the world for the gospel.

Secondly, incumbents are the most important people in the church. Incumbents teach the church, you are crucial to the good health of the churches. Only more recently have we moved from this. Your theological education has to be first class — top class. I say this to you as an Archbishop. My job is to preach Christ in every situation in which he finds himself and to oversee recruitment, training and deployment of clergy. Being a bishop is an important and difficult job, but the local church is where the action is. Support your orthodox bishops, but the incumbent is doing the work of the gospel.

Thirdly, we will not get anywhere without laypeople, and we have not done enough to teach the about these issues. You are frightened to teach things that will bring about disunity. If you teach these things there will be a reaction. Your people are constantly being told the Christian view of sexual morality is wrong. If you don’t teach them, you will not succeed. Nothing terrifies more than an educated Protestant lay woman.

Fourthly, we must be theologically well-equipped. Evangelicals are spread around and can be very lonely. Get the Evangelical fellowships going. Become aware of the importance of the strength of the network.

Fifthly, evangelism must be the sharp point in fellowship with one another. English Evangelicalism is terribly divided. We cannot continue our tribal warfare [applause]. We need to advance, and it is the gospel and evangelism which will bring us together under godly focussed leadership.

You will find Evangelical brothers and sisters doing things you wish they wouldn’t before the coming pressure. But before you rush to judge — and to the website — put yourselves in their shoes. Remember, they are doing it to serve Christ. Rebuke them if necessary, but stand with them.

Remember, there is a global fellowship. GAFCON exists and is on your side. This giant doesn’t have to go to England and will support you, and is a means by which you can support others. We need mutual support within the Anglican communion and across it. This is the moment. England, don’t fail us.

Henry Orombi, Greg Venables, Jim Packer have all spoken about the situation. It is not for me to tell you what you must do here, apart from saying you must stand for the gospel and the Bible. We are looking to you. We need you to be strong and brave and true. We will help you. And together we will resist the forces of evil and secularism which seek to extinguish the gospel and are using the Church to do that. Stand firm.

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

Post-GAFCON at All Souls, 5: Panel Discussion

Summary notes by John Richardson

Q: Is it too late to mend the situation?

Greg Venables: It may be possible to mend it, but we must look to the future?

Q: Do you stand with Forward in Faith and Anglo-Catholicism? Can Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics be in one communion?

Peter Jensen: Yes, we have been in one communion. In 2003, one group in the Communion made a terrific blunder breaking through the boundaries. This freed up the rest of us. The Communion will never be the same again. We are one Communion but far looser, and this enables great spiritual movements like GAFCON to arise. The blunder is being turned to good. The Communion is going forward and those who can sign off on something like the Jerusalem statement can work together.

Jim Packer: It is important to know who our friends are. Anglo-Catholics generally believe in Trinity, Scripture, atonement, resurrection, judgement, prayer, etc. A ‘higher’ view of sacraments and priesthood seems secondary in the light of those primary correspondences. I can be friends with Anglo-Catholics. Modern Anglo-Catholicism has a different agenda from in the past. I can, with qualifications, be friends with Anglo-Catholics. I have good will towards Forward in Faith. Liberals are different, denying many of the aforementioned. We have let Liberals get away with too much with regard to leadership in the past.

Q: Would the panel unequivocally condemn violence against lesbian and gay people, and how do you handle issues of polygamy in African culture.

Henry Orombi: Violence against homosexuals is wrong. Jesus did not condemn tax collectors etc. On polygamy my grandfather had six wives and my father two. When dying, none of my grandfather’s wives offered him sanctuary. My father’s two wives, including my mother, were at constant war. I resolved only to have one wife before I became a Christian. As Church the bottom line is I would not ordain a polygamist or give one a prominent place in leadership. We would like to live our lives seeing transformation because of the gospel. We do encourage converted polygamists to formalise marriage with the first wife, whilst the other will live with her children without marital relations.

Q: Would all the GAFCON leaders support those who ordain women?

Peter Jensen: We do not ordain women — that is well known. The ordination of women is a different order of things from the presenting issue. Scripture never suggests an ordained woman is in danger of losing her salvation. The continual practice of greed or immorality is clearly a matter of being inside or outside the kingdom of God.

People at GAFCON had different views. The Jerusalem Statement in paragraph 12 speaks of secondary matters and seeking the mind of Christ on issues that divide us. It is time to rethink this matter under the word of God, yet again. We may be wrong, but we need to bring this prayerfully with each other and to reconsider it. Similarly, we may rethink on divorce and remarriage.

Q: Would you rather not be at the Lambeth Conference? How will GAFCON be brought to bear on the Communion?

Greg Venables: We decided to take no one stance on this. I decided I would go. I have no problems saying I have very little hope for Lambeth. It is not going to be a place where we can sit people down and see what we are going to do.

Henry Orombi: At Dromantine we made our recommendations. In Dar es Salaam we made recommendations seeking a response which would determine who would be invited to Lambeth. By July the Archbishop had already sent out his invitations. How can we agree together? We have already discontinued fellowship with bishops of TEC, how can we come to Lambeth and sit together? Trying to sit together has been attempted repeatedly without real success.

Q: What is the relationship between what has come out of GAFCON and the proposed Covenant?

Peter Jensen: Most at GAFCON probably felt the Covenant was not going anywhere. If it would bind people round the gospel it probably wouldn’t be accepted, if it didn’t it wouldn’t work. I am praying for Lambeth. It may be the Covenant that emerges will be suitable, but I doubt it. The Windsor Process was misconceived from the start. It was balanced, but would not say sin was sin. The Covenant may work, but probably not.

Greg Venables: The Covenant was presented to try to find unity because we were ignoring the problem. The Covenant does not address the real problem. People sitting round the same table would say they accepted one thing, then she [sic] would go back and say she hadn’t accepted it. So you get people who are devious. It is ignoring the real problem.

Q: How was the GAFCON Statement produced?

Peter Jensen: Not in the way I wanted it. I would have written the Statement first, and I drafted one. ABp Akinola got word of it and told me to stop doing, which I didn’t. But he made it quite clear we were to hear the word of God through the people. A communique group had been appointed. We also drew in what people wanted to say to the group — which went on for several days. The group kept hearing what people were saying. By Thursday most was written. By Friday we had a draft. People then broke into groups. Each province signed off on the draft and it was acclaimed on Sunday morning. There were many providences and miracles throughout GAFCON and this was one.

Q: Are we right to understand that at the heart of the Jerusalem Statement is a redefinition of Anglicanism as confessional? How does this affect relationships with ABp of Canterbury?

Greg Venables: It is not a redefinition, it is going back to our roots. Regarding the ABp over to Jim Packer ...

Jim Packer: We must accept the authority of Archbishops because we are Anglicans. The question about the Archbishop of Canterbury was raised in Nigeria, which had redefined itself as an Anglican province without specifying communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury as part of the essence. The present ABp of Canterbury who is by confession a Liberal is making it hard for the rest of us to feel anything other than that we could get on better without him. This may not be true, but I hope the next ABp of Canterbury is of a different persuasion. There is something dispensable about the ABp of Canterbury and it is not of the essence of Anglicanism to be in communion with him when he becomes part of the doctrinal problem. Pray for the next ABp of Canterbury and that he may be with us sooner than we might have thought.

Peter Jensen: As far as I know, being in communion with the ABp of Canterbury as such is not part of our constitution.

Q: Rowan Williams said that GAFCON lacks legitimacy, authority and integrity. Is he right?

Henry Orombi: GAFCON drew in 1,000+ people, bishops and archbishops. The Primates Council is coming together to challenge the unorthodox. I am at pains to understand what the Archbishop is saying. Nothing we did happened in the dark.

Q: Could the panel comment about how people in the CofE may most helpfully respond to GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration?

Peter Jensen: This affects everyone in the UK. Os Guinness compared it to a nuclear explosion where the fallout will happen around the world. Your presence here suggests you are deeply concerned about that fallout. GAFCON is a spiritual movement. Many of you will want to be part of it and to apply it to your local situation. There will be no vote here, but if you are convinced of this you signal so by writing in to the GAFCON website, indicating you support for the GAFCON movement.

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

Post-GAFCON at All Souls, 4: Interview with Revd Dr Jim Packer

Summary notes by John Richardson

[Missed the first few minutes, but a very frail looking, but strong sounding, Jim Packer has been speaking about how Michael Ingham pushed through the agenda on gay blessings in New Westminster, leading to a walk-out of a number of clergy from his diocese.]

JP: After 6 years, news came through that the Archbishop of the Southern Cone was prepared to offer provision for them. Revd David Short called the whole of JP’s church together, and 97% was for leaving New Westminster and accepting jurisdictional hospitality from Greg Venables.

Michael Ingham declared that ministries of leaving clergy had been terminated and their property — built by public subscription and maintained by the congregation — belonged to the Diocese (who had never til then put a penny into it).

Interviewer: Why couldn’t this be a ‘live and let live’ situation?

JP: The gospel calls us to turn away from certain sins. In 1 Corinthians 6 there is a specific description of male homosexual practice in a ‘vice list’. New Westminster is negating the truth about repentance.

The diocese have not allowed any discussion of from any standpoint but the one they approved. ‘Discussion’ was not really open and the hope of calling the diocese to repentance was frustrated.

Interviewer: People who moved out of the diocese were described as schismatic — what about that?

JP: Schism means division, but there are proper and improper divisions. If the gospel is at stake there must be division. Separation took place at the Reformation — was that ‘schism’? I would deny this. Unnecessary separation may properly be called ‘schism’, but in the case of a division like New Westminster this is a necessary split and only the person who caused the split can be described as schismatic, ie the bishop who brought in the blessing of gay unions. I don’t like saying this, but I have to.

Interviewer: What about other churches and clergy who call themselves orthodox and yet remain in the ACC?

JP: I respect my brothers, when they seek honestly before the Lord to find what the Holy Spirit would have them do. We were put in a situation comparable to the Puritan clergy in 1662, being required to renounce the principle of ever rebelling against the king, therefore retrospectively condemning Parliament in the Civil War and also requiring episcopal ordination for those who hadn’t been so ordained in the previous 17 years. Those who came after were not put on the spot in the same way.

The issue has not come to a head for other dioceses in Canada in the same way as it did in New Westminster, so people can make different choices. It is important we respect people who don’t immediately see eye to eye with us.

Interviewer: How can we now understand the Anglican Communion?

JP: The AC has grown out of the Church of England and its missionary endeavours, and in the constitution of most Anglican churches there is some reference to the Church of England and its standards. You define the Anglican communion in terms of agreement with the constitution and with deferment to the Archbishop of Canterbury. This has been called into question because the Archbishop has been ambiguous in relation to the presenting issue: whether gay behaviour is a mode of holiness or, as the Bible regards it, as sin.

There is an upheaval when you have a diocese or province with an heretical leader. The Bishop of New Westminster is an heretical leader. When you have that the case is entirely altered from what the Anglican constitution and history envisages. At the time of the Reformation it was taken for granted that Anglican bishops would be efficient administrators and also spiritual leaders in the full and basic sense — pioneers in evangelism and pastoral ministry, in maintaining Christian standards, and in enabling congregations to stand on their own two feet.

An heretical bishop presents a different situation. Where there is heretical leadership you cannot, as a matter of principle, rule out para-dioceses with parallel jurisdictions.

But how can it be stopped? In the churches of the old west, the method of appointing bishops means you’re going to have Liberal bishops elected. There will be heresy, so what are you to do? Parallel jurisdiction is the only alternative. Otherwise the diocese is powerless under a Liberal bishop. You cannot really reform from within in such a situation.

Interviewer: Isn’t Greg Venables fragmenting the Communion?

JP: No. Those who say he is treat something in Anglicanism — geographical territorial jurisdiction — as inviolable. GV has breached that position. There is practical heresy going on. This is spreading in the West, and the question will be brought back and back and back to Synods. This is a strategy. So we are not disrupting the Anglican Communion, we are keeping it together, by ensuring that people in it are kept in fellowship with a biblically based version of biblical Christianity. You make it possible for the faithful to stay together.

Without it, those in heretical dioceses would be cut off from full communion with the orthodox part of the Anglican Communion. Parallel jurisdiction and realignment is the only way to keep the Anglican Communion together.

Interviewer: You were criticised when here for staying in a pluralist denomination. What is different now?

JP: The difference is that in those days the discussions by heretics were purely notional. You could disclaim the errors of the errorists and seek to persuade people to turn their back on them. The 39 Articles remained as the standard of Anglican orthodoxy and one could appeal to the constitution of the Church with a clear conscience. Guilt by association didn’t apply. But this is different from what prevailed in New Westminster and what has happened in TEC. Both have passed motions saying there is holiness in gay partnerships — this was not happening in England.

Interviewer: The you were asked what you would say if you had 10 minutes with the ABC. What would you say in 2 minutes to us?

JP: Keep the faith, resist Liberalism, do not act the ostrich, hiding your head in the sand.

Interviewer: What would be your wisdom about carrying on the GAFCON process in England?

JP: At the heart of the Statement is the Jerusalem Declaration. I would like to see PCCs and, where possible, Diocesan Synod, or even central bodies, committing themselves to this as their own guiding star. I would like to see the Primates who were leaders at GAFCON meeting in a public way in January 2009, casting the Jerusalem Statement into the form of a covenantal commitment, publicly subscribing to it on the part of their provinces, and also seeing diocesans subscribe to it. I would like to see it presented to new bishops appointed in the Church of England to subscribe to it, and I would like to see it established as a basis for orthodoxy and missionary action.

The goal of the Covenant Process begun in the Windsor Report would thus be achieved in essence. Anglican provinces who didn’t come along with this would be in the outer circle of limited communion for not identifying with Anglican orthodoxy.

This would be a first step in getting Anglicanism back into proper shape.

Interviewer: Thank you for letting us look into your ‘crystal ball’.

(A standing ovation was given to Dr Packer, who also stood to acknowledge it.)

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

Post GAFCON at All Souls 3: ABp Greg Venables

Summary notes by John Richardson

Orthodoxy and Wider Connections

Greg is here with Sylvia his wife. 3 weeks ago she was taken in an ambulance for emergency treatment, in an ambulance with the number plate beginning GOD.

It is a great privilege to be here. It is not really a joy as the situation facing the Anglican Communion is so difficult. Like Sylvia’s hip, the Anglican Communion is out of joint, not right, hobbling along, saying ‘Just a little more and it will be alright.’

The time has come to say ‘No’, we cannot move forward until the joint is back in place.

This is not about structures, politics or even relationships. It is about the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, salvation and the eternal security of many, many, many people. We cannot give it another few months. People are going into eternity without hearing about Jesus. That would be wrong, and we cannot keep silent.

GAFCON did not have a pre-arranged agenda or statement. We met in Jerusalem as in Egypt, in an atmosphere of prayer, Bible study and worship to listen to God and to one another. The Jerusalem Statement came out of that — it seemed right to us and to the Holy Spirit.

We must remember Paul’s words about love — if we do not do this in love, it is not worth doing. Read Francis Schaeffer’s writings about what happened in the Presbyterian Church and the lack of love that occurred in that crisis.

Also, GAFCON is not a breaking away from the Communion — we are the Anglican Communion. Nor is it a seizing of power within the Communion. It is the exercise of legitimate authority within and for the sake of the Anglican Communion, to do what needs to be done, to be a rallying point where people can come together on the essentials and on the Lord Jesus Christ.

What has been happening already must be brought together into a structure so that there can be working in unity.

Why now? Why not take longer? An enormous amount of time has already been taken, going back to before Lambeth 1998. Primates’ and other meetings followed. Time and again things were said, to no avail. People either cannot hear or do not want to hear, but something had to be done now, in the name of the gospel and in the name of people haemorrhaging away from the Anglican church, especially in North America.

The doubt being cast on the gospel and the person of Jesus is not the result of modern knowledge, it is the result of what the serpent said to Eve in Eden: ‘Did God say?’ Eve took a ‘modern’ approach: ‘I am modern, I know better than my husband.’ Thank God for those who have taught us to stay faithful to the word of God.

The modern doubt did not begin with modernism and the search for the historical Jesus. It began when the same tempter came to Jesus in the wilderness saying, ‘If you are the Son of God.’ Either Jesus is the Son of God or he is not. If not, Christianity is a sham. CS Lewis: Jesus is mad, bad or God.

In recent times it is about a shift from a biblical paradigm to rationalism, not under the authority of God and his word. The shift was from an open universe, where God can intervene, to a closed universe, where we are subject to determinism and religion is a subjective event for you.

Also a shift from universe where truth and non-truth are opposed to one where truth and non-truth can be brought together to find a new truth. Synthesis is not the way God works.

When the Global South came together they read the word of God together from Galatians 1, ‘I am astonished you are deserting him ...’ This is not about inclusion but about walking away from the gospel. If you want to understand this, go to Packer’s Fundamentalism and the Word of God written fifty years ago: the uninhibited character of American liberalism ... God’s character is one of pure benevolence, sin separates no-one from God, Christ is man’s saviour only as a perfect teacher and example, not divine, God only in the sense of God-conscious, no miracles, Christianity differs from other religions only as the ‘best and highest’, the Bible is not a divine record of revelation, doctrine is not the God-given word.

It was clear fifty years ago. We have been waiting a long time.

In the Communion process, Lambeth 1998 clear statement was rejected, ignored and ridiculed. No one said, ‘Let’s talk about this.’ There was no dialogue! The Primates met around the subject (including Maurice Sinclair here today). Sinclair and Gomez wrote Mending the Net — it was not discussed at Kanuga. There have been numerous Primates’ meeting, saying ‘Don’t do it.’ Griswold signed it because it contained the words ‘as a body’. Within hours New Westminster had moved to same-sex blessings and shortly after Gene Robinson was elected.

There has been constant stonewalling. The Windsor Report, Dromantine meeting, Tanzania meeting followed. Deadlines were drawn up, then we were told they were not deadlines. Lambeth Conference was set up and Primates were told there would not be another Primates meeting.

In the UK there seems to be either unawareness or denial: ‘What’s all the fuss about?’ Business is ‘as usual’. But it isn’t business as usual. Truth has been turned around, non-truth is presented, but redemption is not. You will not find redemption, even though the words are Christian.

So, steps have been taken. GV could not sit with brothers and sisters who wept and said they could not continue their ministry under these circumstances. Imagine allowing to happen to Jim Packer what was happening to him — how could you allow this?

We cannot ignore the disintegration of Anglicanism any longer.

But you [in England] are going to have to make decisions and think about how you are going to handle all this. You are not on your own. We will walk with you. Secondly, do not let whatever has to happen move you away from the major task of the Church which is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Do understand this. You personally have to live in a close place with God. Preach and teach from the Word of God.

Your circumstances in the UK are very difficult. You have to watch your language. I don’t know how you organize your services and preaching, but as Martin Lloyd Jones said, ‘You cannot preach the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in twenty minutes.’ You have to grapple with this. People have been taken over by another way of thinking. Their whole mind has been turned round. There has to be a return to solid Bible study and solid preaching of the Word of God.

As John Sentamu said, ‘In England you have forgotten where you came from.’ This country’s world role was because you sat under the Word of God. Prayer is also essential.

There will be more to say later.

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

Post GAFCON at All Souls, 1: ABp Henry Orombi

Live from the post-GAFCON meeting at All Souls (batteries permitting) here are my notes on the first talk, by Archbishop Henry Orombi.

Orthodoxy and Effective Mission

Effective mission can be very costly. HO is a child of the mission of the Church of England, which came to Uganda in 1877. 3 men took gospel to his people by invitation of the then king in Uganda.

People left ancestral worship, shifted from being warring tribes to loving, shifted from culture of people to following culture of gospel. Look back in pride to effective mission of your people and their ancestors.

People paid the price for believing the gospel and the church grew. Over 8 million now in the Anglican Church.

Effective mission came from preaching Word of God and this shifted people culturally.

In 1935 revival swept through this part of Africa. Message centred on ‘walking in the light’. People showed fruit of conversion, enthusiastic, repenting. There was a new impetus and that revival is still on. Many came to living faith in Jesus Christ. People proclaimed Jesus is Lord and Jesus is alive. In a multi-tribal setting, people were brought to love one another.

Worship became meaningful. Singing changed from ‘English’ to Ugandan. Social life changed. ‘The old has gone, the new has come.’

The honeymoon season ended and testing came. From 1971-1979 Idi Amin ruled and that was the advent of a dark season. Amin killed many, fed people to crocodiles, ruined the economy, drained the nation of effective leadership and destroyed what could be destroyed. But the church remained.

He even killed the Anglican Archbishop to instil fear in the people. This backfired — Anglicans came back to the church, realizing that the gospel is expensive. Amin laid a seed of utter commitment.

Then in 1987 to the present there has been civil strife in northern Uganda. People have been displaced into camps, but the church has gone with them, not running away.

This is incarnational. Effective mission involves being with people in their situation. HO has to follow that through in his own work and ministry to people.

HIV/AIDS is a problem. The church has responded. Illicit sex is a key way of transmitting this virus and the church has responded in its preaching abstinence and faithfulness. Church has preached against adultery and cohabitation, which is fornication.

People need to hear the truth and only this can liberate us. Church has cared for people with HIV, with sick, dying and dead.

Effective mission is a necessity of passing the faith we hold today to the next generation. We have received from the apostolic ministry and people who brought the faith to us. We have to pass it on.

Young people in Uganda are looking for meaning, they are anxious, but they are also looking to know the living God. HO was and is a youth pastor. Unless the true gospel is passed on, we will lose these young people.

The gospel is like a relay race — we have to pass on the baton, including to young people. So HO goes to young people’s camps. HO recently spent a week in young people’s camp to convey to them how important they are.

Do we still have the young people? If we lose young people today, church is in very dangerous ground, so he is keen to communicate to them. Eight of his travelling team as they go round diocese are young people. They are an investment. The urgency of the mission needs to be deposited in their lives. The next generation needs to be mentored, by example, by teaching.

Do we have anything to pass on to the next generation? If we do, we must pass it on. How will history judge us with regard to the next generation.

Ezekiel 33:1-9 — the watchman against the coming sword.

The trumpet call is a matter of urgency. HO was an Anglican from an early age. Today, he has been a voice in Uganda as one who has met the Lord, experienced the love of God, and who is willing to share it with others. He has been arrested and threatened. You don’t have to be a criminal to be arrested. Effective mission will involve persecution and sacrifice.

Watchmen need a clear vision to see the enemy — thus our vision needs to be clear. The watchman needs a vantage point from which to see — sometimes we don’t see what is happening. The watchman must make a clear sound on the trumpet — the sound is not clear in this Communion.

He longs to proclaim in England what the English proclaimed in Uganda. There is a need for boldness and clarity to proclaim this gospel. The world may be deaf and may laugh, but we have God’s command to proclaim this gospel. Any other gospel is not equal to the gospel for which the martyrs died.

So may the God of truth come on our planet to transform us from hopelessness to hope in the cross, to knit our hearts together so that we may be faithful. We will stand, witness and if need be die for the Word of God.

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.