GAFCON - Game Over or New Game?

One of the most interesting people I ever listened to was an advertising executive, talking to a class studying Fashion and Design with Marketing, back in the 1980s. This man had a better grasp of human motivation than anyone I’ve ever met, before or since.

The reason, however, was self-evident: his livelihood depended on understanding what made people tick. Hence he knew (for example) that because 80% of men’s underwear was bought by women, the advertising and packaging needed to be aimed at them.

Another social group with an excellent grasp of human nature is journalists, and for much the same reason: they need a nose for a story, without which they cannot sell the papers that pay their wages. And it is this light that we might interpret the absence of journalists at the recent GAFCON primates press conference.

Some have read this as indicating that GAFCON is washed up. Personally, I believe it is rather because the national press now recognize there is no story in the division of the Anglican Communion — not because the Communion has survived the pressures of recent years but because it quite evidently has not. As a headline, ‘Anglican Communion Faces Split’ is now entirely on a par with ‘Dog Bites Man’.

In fact, the lack of press interest was already evident at the Alexandria Primates’ Meeting in February this year where, according to the Changing Attitude Blog, there were only seven people in the press briefings (including the blogger himself).

This lack of interest from those whose job it is to sniff out what is interesting is as profound as the silence of a canary in a coalmine. It is a sure sign that something has already happened, even though many people may not have noticed.

In case there is any doubt about this, let us remind ourselves that following that meeting the Archbishop of Canterbury appointed a group of Pastoral Visitors “commissioned by him to conduct personal and face to face conversations in order to assist in the clearest discernment of the ways forward in any given situation of tension”.

One of those situations of tension is, presumably, North America. What, then, have the Pastoral Visitors achieved so far in that area? Does anyone know? Or care? The question is not entirely rhetorical, but the answer for most of us is undoubtedly ‘No’ to both.And the point is, this applies to Communion Conservatives as much as to anyone. I doubt very much that, for example, Bishop Tom Wright has any confidence in the scheme, even if he knows much about its workings. And certainly no-one in the hierarchy of TEC gives a hoot.Which brings us to the Windsor Process. If ever there were an argument for mercy-killing, the prospect of putting a bullet in this sad saga must be the best. Chinese Communism used to refer to the West as a paper tiger. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence must see that the Anglican Covenant is not merely paper, but soggy paper. It is to church discipline what Eeyore’s balloon was to birthday celebrations: “You did say balloon? One of those big coloured things you blow up? Gaiety, song-and-dance, here we are and there we are?” Or in the case of the Covenant, one of those things that is going to set boundaries, and define the faith and the faithful?

Those who believe the Windsor ‘Process’ is going to deliver what the Primates’ were demanding four years ago are fooling no one but themselves. Indeed, it cannot deliver, since the Anglican Communion as it was in 1998 is no more. In a few years time, that will be recognized as the date of the last true Lambeth Conference of the old, Empire based, gathering of global Anglican bodies. 2008 was not the year of the breakup, but it was the year in which the breakup could no longer be denied.

The old game is over, and that is sad (in my view). But the new game is beginning. We must look to the future. And it is not ‘Windsor shaped’. The journalists who stayed away from the GAFCON meeting knew this. They will not, I suspect, be there in droves when the Covenant is finally launched either.

The reality is that Anglicanism is now a mixed economy: Canterbury, GAFCON, the FCA, TEC, the ACNA will all vie for position, and it will be the economics of church growth, not reports and formal processes, which will decide the outcome. Our Lord Jesus Christ said that he would build his church. Time will now tell which that is.

Revd John P Richardson
21 April 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Suddenly it’s over for the Anglican Communion

Like a dam that has been under pressure for some time, the Anglican Communion has, I believe, suddenly and irrevocably broken. They think its all over? It is now.

As evidence of this, I would ask the reader to consider what happened at the last Primates’ meeting. Indeed, as a ‘starter for ten’, I would ask if you can recall when it was held and where. (Answers: February, Alexandria.) The key outcome was the appointment of a team of Pastoral Visitors to act, in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as “consultants in situations of stress and conflict” across the Communion (as if we still can’t admit what that really means).

The verdict of traditionalists involved in the conflicts in North America, however, is “too little, too late.”

But in any case, who is interested? Who cares? Who is getting excited by these attempts to address the issues that first gave rise to what is still being called the Windsor Process?

Compared with Dromantine or Dar es Salaam, the Alexandria Primates’ Meeting was a ‘fizzle’. There were no boycotts, there were no fireworks and, most importantly, there were almost no press. That is to say, those with an instinct for a story realized that there was ‘nothing to see here’.

Meanwhile, despite warnings to the contrary from earlier meetings, legal actions continue unabated in the United States, and in both the US and Canada, plans for integrating same-sex relationships and blessings into the theology and liturgy of the Anglican churches continues almost unabated.

In short, at the structural level in North America, the revisionist ‘Liberals’ have won.

They have called the bluff of the Communion as a whole, and they have simply by-passed the reconciling posture of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Knowing that, in the end, they can do what they like and get away with it they are, unsurprisingly, pressing ahead. If the election of a Buddhism-practising bishop can be accepted without a whimper both within TEC and beyond, then clearly the end of the moratorium on consecrating those in active gay relationships cannot be far off.

Looking at the ‘Thinking Anglicans’ website — a useful bellwether for these things — it is clear that no one really believes in the fight any longer. Not that the revisionists have given in, but rather that no one is really bothered. Eventually, and inevitably, TEC and the Anglican Church in Canada will resume ‘business as usual’ on the sexuality agenda. Indeed in my own view the Canadians are currently ahead of the Americans in this regard. Meanwhile, traditionalists have taken their own structural steps which mean that eventually their attention will have to return to the ‘mundane’ subjects of preaching, teaching and spreading the gospel. A church cannot live on controversy alone.

GAFCON was a great illustration of what global Anglicanism could have been, but there is no clear path ahead for the movement. The Nigerians want to get on with mission their own way, in their own backyard, as do those from Sydney, who are pressing ahead with their ambitious, but intensely demanding, outreach. Get-togethers are great, but they cannot provide the daily agenda.

And the truth is, since global Anglicanism is no longer the prize, there is nothing really left to fight over. And if there is nothing over which to fight, who will bother fighting? I don’t believe Dr Katharine Jefferts-Schori really gives a fig what Rowan Williams or anyone else thinks of her. In the end, TEC will become an increasingly independent body, at the centre of its own network. The global agenda for TEC will be the expansion of its influence in Africa, not the need to remain in Canterbury’s good books.

In North America, there will, for a time at least, be two competing ‘Anglicanisms’, one recognized by GAFCON/FCA, the other embraced by Canterbury and claiming the moral high-ground as the non-separatists. This will become a matter for sheer ‘economics’ — numbers and income deciding who is eventually left standing where. Much the same will happen in Canada.

The real question for us in these islands is what will happen here, and specifically what will happen in England. It is clear that Wales and Scotland are already realigning theologically with TEC/Canada. There are many who hope and expect that England will do the same.

The launch in this country later this year of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans therefore has an urgent question to address, which is how to deal with the new situation of realpolitik. We are no longer looking to ‘save the Communion’. It is lost. The urgent question is whether we can save ourselves.

Revd John P Richardson
9 March 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Open Evangelicalism, NEAC 2008 and the future of the Church of England

The Church of England Evangelical Council website is now advertising 'NEAC 2008' - a consultation in continuity with the previous 'National Evangelical Anglican Consultations'. Meanwhile, on the Fulcrum website, there are rumblings about whether this is going to be truly 'representative' of the current state of Anglican Evangelicalism in England.

Personally, I can't help wondering about 'karma' at this point - or at least, a possible episode of My Name is Earl!

Fulcrum was founded in reaction to the direction being taken during the organizing of the last residential NEAC, at Blackpool in 2003. An article on the Fulcrum website speaks of "the restrictive nature of the planning ... and the sharp reaction of some conservative evangelicals to the appointment of Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury".

Early in September 2003, the founders of Fulcrum met in St Mary's vicarage, Islington, and decided to launch at NEAC itself. Francis Bridger, the former Principal of Trinity Theological College, Bristol, was appointed as the chair and Elaine Storkey and Tim Dakin (of CMS) as vice chairs. Graham Kings, the Rector of St Mary's was appointed Theological Secretary, Rod Green, a member of St Mary's as Administrator and John Martin (formerly editor of the Church of England Newspaper) as Press Officer. Others involved in the planning included Christina Rees (of WATCH) and Andrew Goddard (of Wycliffe Hall Theological College).

Just three days before the start of NEAC 4, Graham Kings e-mailed the CEEC about the formation of the new organization and used the fact that he had booked the bar at the Conference venue for Fulcrum's informal launch. In addition to Kings himself, speakers over the subsequent evenings included Bishop Tom Wright, Christina Baxter (Principal of St John's Theological College, Nottingham) and Bishop Graham Cray.

Since then, Fulcrum has claimed the 'Evangelical Centre' and, simultaneously, has steadfastly opposed more Conservative groupings such as Reform, and initiatives such as GAFCON. In effect, therefore, it has formalized the divisions in Evangelicalism between its Conservative and Open strands.

Thus Evangelical unity in the Church of England is probably at an all-time low since the end of the Second World War. The old pattern of Evangelical clergy and laity gathering in Diocesan Fellowships - which provide one of the electoral bases for representation on the CEEC itself - has almost disappeared in many areas. There is deep mistrust, exacerbated by what is perceived amongst many Conservatives as a drift of Open Evangelicals into Liberalism. Christina Rees, for example, now seems thoroughly committed, via WATCH, to the 'Inclusive Church' network and agenda, and equally committed to the marginalization of Traditionalists, both Evangelical and Catholic, on the issue of women bishops.

However, one consequence of this disunity is, ironically, that whilst Conservative Evangelicals are doubtless in a minority, they are disproportionately represented within many established bodies and organizations simply because they have continued to be involved, attend meetings and generally do the donkey work. By contrast, the movement of self-confessed 'Fulcrumites' to the supposed 'centre' has been a movement away from identification with an overriding 'Evangelical' identity and therefore leaves them marginalized from the established Evangelical structures.

One thus reads complaints about NEAC and 'representativeness' by Fulcrum supporters with a sense of 'coming back to bite you'.

A possible solution, of course, would be for Open Evangelicals to commit themselves once again to involvement in Evangelical structures. But in the present context that would necessarily be to express a 'distinctiveness' from the rest of the Church of England, and this seems to be something which, by their very nature, Open Evangelicals are not willing to do.

Given the condition of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, the logic of this would seem to lead, inexorably, to the absorption of Open Evangelicalism into a TEC-style denomination, whilst Conservatives are driven to the edge, and perhaps beyond.

That, however, is no doubt one of the reasons for holding NEAC 2008 - to prevent further drift in both the demonination and the constituency. My advice to Fulcrum and to Open Evangelicals would be, "Go back to the old paths. Put your commitment to Evangelicalism, and Evangelicals, above your commitment to the Church of England and you will benefit the Church of England more than by trying to do things the other way round."

But it may be too late for that.

John Richardson
12 August 2008

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Next for REFORM: 'time to feel the FORCE'

As the Yom Kippur war showed, the holiday period is always a good time to launch an attack on your enemy if you are prepared and he is not. So the 7/7 vote by the General Synod on women bishops is meeting with a sluggish response in some circles, particularly from Conservative Evangelicals, partly because so many (including myself) are (or are meant to be) on holiday.

Phoning around during the week, I was told that the Reform Council has a scheduled meeting in September, but beyond a press release expressing disappointment and promising to look at the Code of Practice proposals in February next year, it is not clear what more immediate action will be forthcoming. Thus although the same press release states that Synod’s action, “will no doubt further rouse the ‘sleeping giant’ of orthodox and evangelical Anglicanism,” it is by no means clear what time the ‘giant’ has set his alarm clock for.

And when the giant does finally stumble out of bed, what is he to do?

There is some talk going around about quota capping or cutting. But then there is always talk about quota capping or cutting. It is the standard Conservative Evangelical response to every such crisis, and it is completely the wrong answer. Apart from the fact that it almost never happens (and see here for an alternative that also never got off the ground), the problem is that in this case it is particularly hard to see the connection with the presenting issue.

The problem is not money. And depriving the Church of England of a chunk of its income isn’t going to address what has happened. In any case, does anyone seriously think that even if every Reform parish (and there aren’t that many) withheld all its money tomorrow, the General Synod would be persuaded to change its mind?

Others have mentioned GAFCON in a slightly vague ‘mightn’t this be grounds for an appeal?’ way. But what form could an appeal take? As is well-known, GAFCON includes those (some of them evangelicals) who do ordain women as well as those who don’t. One can hardly appeal to GAFCON on the grounds that the Church of England has decided to do what some of them find unexceptionable.

Nor can it be argued that Traditionalists are being ‘excluded’ from the Church of England. First, we don’t know what form the Code of Practice will take, so it might be argued that we would all have to ‘wait and see’. Secondly, there is no absolute certainty that Synod will vote through the required legislation. I note that in the Church Times poll on the Synod vote, it currently (11/07, 2.30pm) shows 92% of respondents think Synod took the wrong decision — and that in a ‘Liberal establishment’ journal! (Go here to vote.) A new Synod might well make life difficult for the legislation currently proposed.

So another problem with the ‘appeal to GAFCON’ approach’ is that it means waiting to see the outcome of the Synodical process, when what is needed is action now.

Whatever Reform proposes to do, therefore, it must take account of the true nature of the problem facing us, which is not that we will have women bishops but that we will have no adequate structural provision for those who cannot accept their ministry. As a result, the whole Church will be affected by the marginalizing of Conservative and Traditionalist views. What is needed, then, is something which will address the structures effectively, keeping us firmly in, instead of pushing us further out.

And here (as I have been arguing for some time) there is only one obvious contender, which is the legislation already in place, and which will remain in place unless or until it is repealed. I refer, of course, to Resolutions A and B from the Priest (Ordination of Women) Measure and the so-called ‘Resolution C’ of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993.

Unfortunately, it is precisely here that the sleeping giant’s slumber has been deepest, for despite making the issue of gender and leadership in the Church a priority in the Reform Covenant, only a tiny handful of Reform parishes have passed Resolution C. On the contrary, many in Reform have strenuously resisted the suggestion that Resolution C provides any sort of solution for the problems facing them and the wider Church.

It is a direct result of that policy that Conservative Evangelicals find themselves today without any ecclessiologically coherent strategy. Reform has patterned itself on the voluntary organizations of old, such as CPAS or Eclectics. It is a pastoral club, when what is needed is an ecclesial structure, comparable to the other structures of the Church as a whole.

As of last Monday, the Church of England is set on a course which will inevitably take is in the same direction as TEC and the Anglican Church in Canada — to say nothing of the Church in Wales and Scotland.

Distancing ourselves from the Church, by quota cuts or appeals overseas, will only make things worse for the Church as a whole. Resolution C is there begging. The Reform leadership needs to see this and to seize the opportunity it represents.

There has been much talk in the press since GAFCON about FOCA — a fellowship of confessing Anglicans. Within these shores, it is time for FORCE —a Fellowship of Resolution C Evangelicals. Reform’s policy of indifference and hostility towards Resolution C has been a mistake. There is time to correct it, but the time is now.

John Richardson
11 July 2008

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

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.

Pay now, or pay later: why Traditionalists must not wait to act

According to the BBC website, which topically likens the current situation in the Church of England to a game of tennis, “The traditionalists will continue to rally, but the score at the moment is ‘advantage liberals’.”

As I warned six weeks ago, that is indeed the case and it has consequences for the future. Then I wrote that the passage of the ‘Single Clause’ option would mean,

... a counter-Scriptural, egalitarian feminist agenda will have gained the centre-ground. Those Evangelical supporters (and, perhaps, opponents) of women’s ordination who endorse or accept the new arrangements will find themselves faced with a triumphant Liberalism whose next aim will undoubtedly be the inclusion of same-sex relationships and the modification of our concept of God.

The Liberal wing of the Church of England has achieved a massive gain. But their position is not without hazard. Both Archbishops advised against the step that has been taken. Other senior bishops also disapproved. Substantial numbers in the Synod voted against the final motion. Hundreds of clergy have indicated they would have to rethink their position in the Church.

For weeks, the talk in the media has been of split and schism, not only abroad over the issues addressed by GAFCON, but here in England over women bishops.

But swift action is the key. When Hitler occupied the Rhineland in 1936, his armies had order to retreat if attacked. The world waited to see what Britain and France would do, but they did nothing and so Hitler won.

The comparison here, though, is not with Hitler, but with the Allies. Every hour that they did nothing made doing something less likely. And by doing nothing they not only lost in the short-term, but made it inevitable they would have to fight harder in the long term.

This, then, is the situation confronting Traditionalists in the Church of England. The General Synod has effectively voted that they be marginalised. Archbishop John Sentamu denied strongly that they were being thrown out, and technically that is true. But they are being bypassed and rendered irrelevant. As Adrian Worsfold (who has a nose for these things) writes,

[This decision] represents the effective finishing of the traditionalist Anglo-Catholic so that now just the Affirming (or, roughly speaking, liberal) Anglo-Catholic has a future in the Church of England. Soon a situation could well arise where Conservative Evangelicals are leaving and evangelicals are weakened.

And he finishes on what ought to be a sombre note for Evangelicals who think they can stay and prosper:

By 2014 the Church of England should look rather more like The Episcopal Church in the United States, the Anglican Church of Canada, the New Zealand Church, and the others in these islands.

The Church of England now is a genuine ‘mixed economy’ containing Anglo-Catholics and Charismatics, Open and Conservative Evangelicals, Affirming Catholics and Radical Liberals, as well as plenty who are just ‘middle of the road’. As such, it embodies spiritual hope as well as error. And most importantly, at least in theory, people from any of these can become a bishop.

Of course it will be objected, and it is true, that no woman can yet become a bishop. But that is, of course, due to change. Thanks to the General Synod, however, there is another, quite unnecessary, change coming with it, for whilst the Church of England will indeed have women bishops, they will not be, except for a few limited purposes, be drawn from the ranks of conservatives.

Indeed, by 2014 the conservatives will be a diminishing presence, represented only by those for whom optimism triumphs constantly over experience. A compromise could have been reached. Instead, as the Manchester Report warned, the Church of England of the future will be “possibly be more cohesive [but] less theologically diverse.”

That is unless action is taken and taken now, for it is an undeniable fact that it is radical principled action which changes the Anglican church, not debate and dialogue. The Oxford Movement demonstrated this in the nineteenth century, the churches of North America have shown it in the last and in this, first by illegally ordaining women, then by ignoring the pleas of the Communion not to consecrate Gene Robinson.

Moreover, the shape that action should take is clear. The Synod was asked, as a result of a long process of consultation, to provide structural solutions for Traditionalists — structures which would best be expressed through new dioceses. And what is a diocese, other than a gathering of churches and parishes for mutual mission and support who, with their clergy, are under the oversight of a bishop?

The bishops necessary to this are in place. The churches, parishes and clergy know who they are. In fact everything was ready to go until Synod said no. At the moment, Liberalism has had the Church of England handed to it on a plate. In six months, or even six weeks, it will be too late to change that. Momentum will have been lost, gains will have been consolidated. We will have persuaded ourselves that perhaps the next meeting, or the next consultation, or the next vote may provide us with a way out.

Or we could act now. We could simply say to the Synod, “Thank you, but we consider you have made a mistake, and it is our duty as members of this Church not to put into effect what you desire. We will make our own arrangements, and you may think again.”

John Richardson
8 July 2008

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

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.

Can GAFCON really help us in England?

For anyone who is breathlessly waiting for me to say something about GAFCON, I’m holding fire at least until after the meeting at All Souls tomorrow.

To be perfectly honest, I was far too busy and stressed (not least by doing my tax return) to pay proper attention to the deluge of data coming from Jerusalem during the conference itself. Similarly, I’ve read through the Statement, and liked what I saw, but I can’t yet see what it is going to mean for us here in England.

In America and Canada, there is clearly a division taking place which will probably end in overlapping jurisdictions, some of which for the time being will be recognised by some parts of the Anglican Communion and others of which will not.

The big problem for me with the Statement is not that it says anything bad, or leaves out anything good, but that all the good things it advocates are already, in theory, governing what we do in England — and yet here we are still in trouble.

So, for example, the Statement reproduces almost verbatim Canon A5 of the Church of England:

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: 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. (A5 in italics).

Again, every Anglican minister in England has to make a Declaration of Assent to this understanding of the faith.

So why is it we have so many bishops, priests, deacons and even readers who seem to be coming from somewhere else entirely — some of whom have no idea in particular as to what is in the Thirty-nine Articles, and when they find out are often astonished, not least by the fact that the Preface says they are to be taken in their “plain and full meaning” which comes from their “literal and grammatical sense”?

The Articles are deliberately not meant to provide much room for individual interpretation, so why is individual judgement in matters of faith held up almost as the ‘fortieth Article’?

What this reflects, I’ve suggested before, is an ‘institutionalized dishonesty’ which unfortunately prevails in the Church of England, and which no number of defining ‘statements’ can address. If, as happens constantly, you are able to say that you ‘assent’ to what you palpably don’t believe what sort of institutional mindset does this create? Surely not a healthy one!

It has been said that the Church of England operates a ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell,’ policy with regard to homosexuality. I would suggest that this may be less harmful in the final analysis than its similar ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ with regard to doctrinal convictions. Personally I would far rather work alongside a person whose sexuality was a private matter of some obscurity but who believed in those teachings of the Fathers and the Councils of the Church as are agreeable to Scripture, than someone of whatever ‘sexuality’ who denied those Scripture-based beliefs privately, but didn’t own up to it.

Of course honesty in all areas would be far better still. But when you institutionalize dishonesty about doctrine it really doesn’t matter how ‘open’ you are on issues of sexuality.

John P Richardson
30 June 200

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