March 25, 2017

April 28, 2010


Jensen Writes on behalf of FCA/GAFCON about Global South “Trumpet”

received by email and online

The Global South to South Encounter

The Fourth Blast of the Trumpet

The image of the trumpet blast seems to be an over-dramatic description of the communiqué issued from the latest Global South Encounter. In fact, the response to it has been somewhat muted. But as a guest at the conference, I believe that it fully deserves the title ‘trumpet’ and will in time be regarded as an historic statement.

One reason why it fails to create a strong reaction is that it simply confirms the obvious. The crisis moment has now passed. Many of the Global South provinces have given up on the official North American Anglicans (TEC and the Canadian Church) and regard themselves as being out of communion with them. They renew the call for repentance but can see that, failing something like the Great Awakening, it will not occur. The positive side to this is that they are committed to achieving self-sufficiency so that they will cease to rely on the Western churches for aid. That is something the Global South has been working on for some time, with success.

In my judgment, the assembly was unresponsive to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s video greetings. I don’t think that what he said was obscure. It just seemed to be from another age, another world. His plea for patience misjudged the situation by several years and his talk of the Anglican covenant was not where the actual conference was at. He seemed to suggest that the consecration of a partnered lesbian Bishop will create a crisis. In fact the crisis itself has passed. We are now on the further side of the critical moment; the decisions have all been made; we are already living with the consequences. And it was in working out the consequences that the communiqué may eventually be seen to be historic.

The Global South Encounter could not in itself recognize the authenticity of churches. But the communiqué goes as far as is possible to recognizing the authenticity of the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) and declaring this body to be the true heirs of the Anglican tradition on that continent. This is precisely what the GAFCON/FCA Primates Council did in 2009, and it really means that the leadership of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion regards itself as being in communion with ACNA and out of fellowship with the other North Americans. This was symbolized by the part played by Archbishop Bob Duncan at the conference, especially when he presided at Holy Communion. Furthermore the welcome accorded to the two bishops from the Communion Partners demonstrated the Global South commitment to Biblical standards as a test of fellowship.

In the meantime, of course, there are those, notably in the West, who want to play by the old institutional rules. They would argue that ACNA cannot be part of the Anglican Communion because it has not passed the tests of admission via the Anglican Consultative Council. This is so artificial as to be risible. As the last paragraph of the communiqué observes, the unreformed ‘instruments of communion’ (who invented such an inelegant phrase?) are archaic remnants of a system which has failed. The Global South is vibrant with spiritual reality. It has taken a time for them to break the courteous habit of deference, but they have now chosen reality, not the artificial constructs dominated by the money and politics of western churches.

Which brings us to the covenant. The word ‘covenant’ was prominent in the lead up to the conference. Given that the Anglican covenant reached something like a final form in December it could reasonably be supposed that
the Global South Encounter would regard this as its chief agenda and issue a statement urging all provinces to sign. In fact, the consideration of the covenant theme took a strictly biblical turn from Archbishops Akinola and Chew onwards, and it was scarcely if at all addressed from the platform during the Encounter. The paragraph on the covenant in the communiqué still endorses the idea of such a development, but it is also perfectly clear that work still needs to be done to produce a covenant which the Global South would be happy with. The two defects mentioned are that it lacks disciplinary teeth and that it gives monitoring power to the Standing Committee when it should belong to the Primates.

I suspect that a great deal more lies behind these criticisms. The very appearance of the body called ‘The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion’ was the cause of much private comment, for example. Even if it is a totally innocent development, it seems to fit with the frequent experience of the Global South that they are neither consulted nor listened to and that the deck is always stacked against them. The paragraph is consistent with the view that there is now a very considerable breakdown in trust and that new ways of being Anglican are being found. The praise for Archbishops Mouneer, Orombi and Ernest in their determination no longer to attend meetings with representatives of the North Americans is a further indication that the crisis point has been passed and that we are now in the era of consequences. It seems strange for anyone to be counseling delay and patience under such circumstances.

I am not attempting here to give a record of the Encounter itself, and these observations have no other status than that of an outside observer and one not privy to various of the key meetings between Primates and others. The conference contained a great deal else worthy of remark, including a high quality of presentations. I was especially impressed by the manifest desire to listen to scripture and to be obedient to scripture. But I conclude with a particular moment which had special significance for me and ties in with my comments on the communiqué.

It occurred in my small group meeting. In this group were representatives from Madagascar, Kenya, the Solomons, South Africa, India, Myanmar, and Burundi – a fair range representing the modern Anglican Communion and the
very ones who value their membership of the Communion so highly. We were discussing covenants, and the issue of the Anglican covenant emerged. Very gently but firmly the group let me into a secret. It was all very well to have a covenant, but what if the people have different ideas as to what a covenant may mean? What if you were in covenanting with westerners, whose word could not be relied on? Of what use is a covenant then? Look at the state of marriage in the west. Consider the western capacity to use slippery words. What would a covenant be worth?

Right action demands that we understand our own times accurately. If I am correct, that we now belong to the post-crisis phase, we need to know what such a moment requires. Action in this phase is no less demanding. One thing is for sure: those who wait and do nothing will be playing into the hands of ideologues who have had such a triumph in the west. This is especially so for the orthodox in those churches in the west which have yet to come into their moment of truth. For them there can no longer be, ‘A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest…’ (Proverbs 24:33). Instead they must wield, ‘The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God’ (Ephesians 6:17), if they wish to survive. This is at the heart of what I observed in Singapore, and it is in this, as in the communiqué, that I believe that Global South, like GAFCON/FCA, is pointing to the Anglican future.

Peter Jensen
General Secretary, GAFCON/FCA

The text of this statement has been posted on the GAFCON and FCA sites
www.gafcon.org and www,fca.net . At those sites you can also read the latest
communiqué from the GAFCON/FCA Primates Council.
The Global South statement is at
http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/blog/comments/fourth_trumpet_from_the_fourth_anglican_global_south_to_south_encounter


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

18 comments

This is an insightful reflection on the GS communique, and suggests that it is a stronger and more powerful statement than at first reading.
What I would like to see now is some kind of coordinated approach between the GS and the FCA to restore discipline and uphold the orthodox faith within the communion. If we just keep on reacting to each new heresy of the TEC and ACoC, we concede the agenda to them. Each province has to take decisions individually about breaking communion, recognition of ACNA, covenant acceptance, participation in AC activities etc. But perhaps the GS and FCA could together provide a guiding voice and a suggested plan of action.
For example,
- We will encourage and support ACNA in its ministry and mission by…
- We will seek to reform the structures of the AC in the following ways…
- If these attempts fail, we will create the following alternative structures…
- We will seek to resist the influence of TEC and ACoC and the spread of their false gospel in our provinces by…
- We require the following editions to the Anglican Covenant / propose the following new basis for AC membership…
I know this is pretty vague and lacking in detail, but I am praying orthodox Anglcians find a way to set the agenda and speak with a common voice.
Andrew Reid

[1] Posted by spicksandspecks on 4-28-2010 at 04:39 AM · [top]

Though there are certainly things I disagree with ++Jensen about, this is an excellent statement. Crystal clear and spot on!

[2] Posted by texanglican on 4-28-2010 at 06:32 AM · [top]

Interesting take on Singapore.  Food for thought.

[3] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 4-28-2010 at 07:20 AM · [top]

”We are now on the further side of the critical moment; the decisions have all been made; we are already living with the consequences. And it was in working out the consequences that the communiqué may eventually be seen to be historic.”

I believe it can be said that our past experiences, good or bad, contribute to the wisdom necessary to move forward in a manner our Lord would wish. Both the authors of the Trumpet and ++Jensen understand this and have said as much.

We have a mission in life. Let’s move on…….

[4] Posted by Fisherman on 4-28-2010 at 07:24 AM · [top]

My dear Mr. Reid,
For the sake of convenience in responding, I’m numbering your bullets, 1 through 5.

1 I think they have/are doing everything they can to support ACNA. I hope they now focus on strengthening the ties with the CP bishops. The CP need outside-of-TEC allies against the heretics.

2 Not sure but what they haven’t given up on the existing structures unless/until they are modified as to size-relative representation on the committees, rather than dollar-relative representation that seems to currently exist.

3 I think they have already started building alternative structures, with the Primates Council being the first and most important in their view of how the communion should be.

4 They have been working on self-sufficiency for sometime now and their efforts seem to be working. Some of their members need a bit more time to get to the point that they can ignore the bribes from North America, The GS is now working on mutual inter-dependency in mission efforts.

5 I think they articulated the deficiencies of the currently
proposed covenant, there needs to adherence to Lambeth 1.10, not just lip-service, and authority belongs in the Primates, who can administer discipline as needed.

They are no longer interested in expressing ire at the heretics, been done to the point of exhaustion, and they are focusing on the God-given mission of spreading the Gospel, the Word of God.

At least that’s how I see the their statement.

[5] Posted by Marie Blocher on 4-28-2010 at 07:46 AM · [top]

Mmmm.

1) Plenty of attempt in this statement to conflate “Gafcon/FCA” with the 20 Primates of the Global South encounter—but I don’t think that will fly.  They’ve been trying for that for years, and it hasn’t happened.

2) RE: “They would argue that ACNA cannot be part of the Anglican Communion because it has not passed the tests of admission via the Anglican Consultative Council.”

Mmm.  And isn’t recognized by the ABC, and doesn’t get invited to Lambeth and doesn’t have a Primate that will get to go to the Primates meetings which after all is the definition of “the Anglican Communion.”  This is the same old tired deconstructionist meme that the revisionists attempt with Scripture and canon too.  The Anglican Communion is defined, like it or not.  [I personally don’t like it.]  Try as they might FCA is not going to be able to redefine it as they please.  So whatever body that ends up rising out of these ashes ain’t gonna be “the Anglican Communion” no matter how much postmodern redefining of words and ideas is tried.  It’ll be something else—maybe even something better.  But it won’t be “the Anglican Communion” any more than if I gathered a group of states together, declared ourselves a country and then tried to claim we were actually “the United States of America.”

3) RE: “But the communiqué goes as far as is possible to recognizing the authenticity of the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) and declaring this body to be the true heirs of the Anglican tradition on that continent.”

It did?  When?  Where?  Using what words?  How?

No it didn’t.

RE: “This is precisely what the GAFCON/FCA Primates Council did in 2009 ...” 

Yeh—we know.  More conflation attempted between GAFCON/FCA and the South to South encounter meeting. 

I personally don’t believe that ACNA is “the true heirs of the Anglican tradition on that continent.”  But I’m not surprised that’s being claimed.  Nor do I really care if some wish to think it so.

[6] Posted by Sarah on 4-28-2010 at 09:05 AM · [top]

Both sides can spin, or should we say more euphemistically “try to put things in a better light.”

Yes, the awful Covenant wasn’t signed on to jointly which would have played into Rowan’s manipulative hands, but no alternative Covenant was proposed. The Global South is stuck.

The call for economic independence was important. The good news is that with TEClub’s lucre drying up for anything but lawsuits, independence will be achieved. It is well documented how liberals are stingy with their money.

[7] Posted by robroy on 4-28-2010 at 09:31 AM · [top]

To me this is the most important part of the communiqué.

that the leadership of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion regards itself as being in communion with ACNA and out of fellowship with the other North Americans. This was symbolized by the part played by Archbishop Bob Duncan at the conference, especially when he presided at Holy Communion. Furthermore the welcome accorded to the two bishops from the Communion Partners demonstrated the Global South commitment to Biblical standards as a test of fellowship.

Glad I recognized the significance of Archbishop Duncan presiding at HE. The crisis has long past. That started decades ago.  No doubt, TEc will/is going through a crisis, financially and spiritually. However,  for many the crisis (I include myself in this group) is indeed past. It would be like putting the genie back in the bottle- can’t be done.

I do think that Anglicanism will survive. I think the “true heirs of the Anglican tradition” in North America must include more than those in ACNA.  I hope that the welcome accorded Bishop Howe and Bishop Lawrence is some how more than just fellowship and we, the people of the their dioceses and others who part of the CP,  be included among the true heirs of the Anglican tradition in North America.

[8] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 4-28-2010 at 10:53 AM · [top]

It is interesting that he posits that the crisis is over.  If the strife is o’er, how come it doesn’t feel like the battle’s won?

[9] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 4-28-2010 at 11:13 AM · [top]

“Conflation?” After stating plainly that he was not part of many of the GS discussions? Hardly. Solidarity? Completely.

Thank you for the quote SC blue cat lady. That is the critical expression of the will of the GS regarding ACNA. That this may lead some day to formal admission into the current Anglican Communion or that this is one (of potentially several?) new shoot(s) out of the dead western stump of the AC for the formation of a new ‘Anglican entitiy’, time only will tell.

[10] Posted by Mana Holman on 4-28-2010 at 11:21 AM · [top]

#9 - I think it’s more that instead of the AC being at the breaking point, they have recognized that it is broken beyond repair.  So they are moving forward, regrouping.

Where does this leave us in TEC?  In hostile territory.  Who teaches your kids?  You.  You have to teach them what was and what should be and what is wrong with what is and why.  Not an easy place, and nowhere as cushy as we had it growing up.  No matter what the GS comes up with, it won’t be in time for your kids.  You have to make the difference in their lives, and the lives of the youth to come.

Am I wrong?  If so, please correct me.

[11] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 4-28-2010 at 11:23 AM · [top]

Well one can argue the toss about what is Anglican and who decides, and does it just mean some personal fiat of whoever happens to be number three in the Church of England.  The reality is that most of the world’s Anglicans have continued to recognise our brothers and sisters and their priests and bishops in ACNA as Anglican and in communion with us.  That was demonstrated physically in Singapore.

For me I don’t think the battle is over or things settled, there is a crisis of confidence in the ‘Instruments of Communion’ and it is getting worse.

Meanwhile I have been following with interest some of ACNA’s ministry, and I have to say I find it exciting and encouraging.  They are really heading out into their communities and doing what we are supposed to be doing, making disciples, spreading the good news, feeding the poor and so on.

All very encouraging.

[12] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 4-28-2010 at 11:37 AM · [top]

Personally, I just enjoyed the use of the word “risible”, an underutilized term that needs more exposure….

[13] Posted by rwkachur on 4-28-2010 at 01:35 PM · [top]

1. Sarah wrote:

1) Plenty of attempt in this statement to conflate “Gafcon/FCA” with the 20 Primates of the Global South encounter—

“plenty”? I can’t see any. Are we reading the same document? The *only* reference I can see to Gafcon/FCA is the last sentence, which makes a clear distinction between it and the global south:

This is at the heart of what I observed in Singapore, and it is in this, as in the communiqué, that I believe that Global South, like GAFCON/FCA, is pointing to the Anglican future.

This is not conflating Gafcon/FCA and Global South, but distinguishing them, even though Jensen asserts that they are of like mind on a particular issue (which is a question of fact, the accuracy of which we will find out soon enough). Not only that, but ++Jensen goes out of his way to disclaim any official GS status to his views:

I am not attempting here to give a record of the Encounter itself, and these observations have no other status than that of an outside observer and one not privy to various of the key meetings between Primates and others.

Those who can read an attempt to conflate Gafcon and GS into this will read it into anything, even a restaurant bill.

2. Sarah also wrote

Mmm.  And isn’t recognized by the ABC, and doesn’t get invited to Lambeth and doesn’t have a Primate that will get to go to the Primates meetings which after all is the definition of “the Anglican Communion.”

That is hardly accurate. Firstly, ACNA did not exist at the last Lambeth conference. And no-one can predict what will happen at Lambeth 2018, even if they think they can. Secondly, the process of ABC recognising other churches or provinces takes years, decades usually - look at the process by which Old Catholics, Evangelical Lutherans or the Syrian church were recognised - so the fact that ACNA hasn’t been recognised less than 18 months after its creation is meaningless. Thirdly, re “doesn’t have a Primate that will get to the Primates Meeting” - neither does TEC, so what’s it matter? In fact, there is no guarantee that most of the Primates will attend the next “primates meeting” which is due in 2011.

3. Sarah also wrote:

Try as they might FCA is not going to be able to redefine it as they please.  So whatever body that ends up rising out of these ashes ain’t gonna be “the Anglican Communion” no matter how much postmodern redefining of words and ideas is tried.

Firstly, what you are responding to is ++Jensen’s prediction as to what the *Global South* is going to do, not FCA. So its not an issue of what FCA is going to define, but what the Global South is going to define. And yes, they can redefine it as they please - who is going to stop them? Sure, someone can wave an old Lambeth Resolution at them, or a decree of the ABC and say “this proves that you can’t call yourselves the Anglican Communion!”, and just how far do you think that will get them? For how many nanoseconds do you think GS will listen to that person? (I can say this safely, given what GSE communique has already said about no longer being constrained by western conventions of Anglicanism).

There is no copyright in the term Anglican Communion, no trademark. Its up there for grabs. If the Global South decide that they want it and will admit whom they please, who is to stop them? They have the provinces; they have the worshippers; and whilst they don’t have a lot of money, they have enough - the important thing is that they no longer need money from the liberals in the west.

And then there is the west - sure the western provinces can object to Global South redefining Anglican Communion, but for how long? No-one’s sure of the precise proportion, but a significant part of the western provinces already agree with Global South anyway - so how long can the charade of “The only Anglican Communion is the one the ABC endorses and we’ve got the ABC” endure? Its anybody’s guess, but time and demographics are on the side of those who follow the GS, and it could happen quicker than we think: Two bishops of TEC openly flouted their leadership to turn up to GSE and take communion, as did the archbishop of the largest diocese in Australia, and apparently a number of English bishops would have done so but for the volcano. The “ABC-centrists” might have only a couple of years instead of decades before they are completely abandoned and isolated.

[14] Posted by MichaelA on 4-29-2010 at 08:04 PM · [top]

Hey MichaelA, just saw your comment.

RE: “The *only* reference I can see to Gafcon/FCA is the last sentence ...”

Yeh—we must be reading different documents.  ; > )

Here’s the first reference: “But the communiqué goes as far as is possible to recognizing the authenticity of the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) and declaring this body to be the true heirs of the Anglican tradition on that continent. This is precisely what the GAFCON/FCA Primates Council did in 2009 ...”

Clear attempt at conflation—trying to pretend as if the communique from the South to South encounter is sailing in the wake of the GAFCON/FCA Primates Council.

RE: “Firstly, ACNA did not exist at the last Lambeth conference.”

But the entities of ACNA did, including its forerunner the Common Cause Partnership—and no bishop from the various entities who was not in TEC was invited as a participant—recall, for instance, Martin Minns. 

RE: “And no-one can predict what will happen at Lambeth 2018, even if they think they can.”

Sure we can—that’s what “predictions” are for.

RE: “...so the fact that ACNA hasn’t been recognised less than 18 months after its creation is meaningless.”

Um—not it’s not meaningless.  It is what it is.  And when the Secretary of the FCA makes pronouncements about who is or is not in the Anglican Communion, then the actual facts become quite meaningful in response.

RE: ” ... Thirdly, re “doesn’t have a Primate that will get to the Primates Meeting” - neither does TEC, so what’s it matter?”

Really?  You don’t think Schori will be at the next Primates meeting with bells on?  Bet she will be!  ; > )

RE: “In fact, there is no guarantee that most of the Primates will attend the next “primates meeting” which is due in 2011.”

I believe that the majority of the 38 Primates will—regrettably—be at the next Primates meeting.

RE: “Firstly, what you are responding to is ++Jensen’s prediction as to what the *Global South* is going to do, not FCA.”

No—I am responding to a member of the leadership team of FCA—Jensen—and his attempts.

RE: “So its not an issue of what FCA is going to define, but what the Global South is going to define. And yes, they can redefine it as they please - who is going to stop them?”

Um no.  The Anglican Communion is an organization, clearly defined, with rules and criteria.  Its individual members don’t get to just call something else “Anglican Communion” with any validity.

RE: “There is no copyright in the term Anglican Communion, no trademark. Its up there for grabs. If the Global South decide that they want it and will admit whom they please, who is to stop them?”

Oh, don’t get me wrong.  I have no doubt that the 8 Primates that are a part of the FCA will form their lips and tongue into the shapes of the words “Anglican Communion”—just as, for instance, Elizabeth Kaeton is capable of forming her lips and tongue into the shapes and sounds of “orthodox” and “catholic” and “evangelical” and just as I can shape my lips and tongue into the shapes and sounds of the words “blonde” and “Buddhist” and “progressive.”  But forming one’s lips and tongue into the shape and sounds of certain words and using them to describe what one pleases does not make it so.  It merely makes one into a deconstructionist liar on occasion.

Once again, you’re conflating the 8 Primates of the FCA/Gafcon entity with the “Global South”—but as has been demonstrated before, they are not “the Global South” and “the Global South” as a whole won’t be doing much of what you think they will do.

Look, this is an attempt by the secretary of the FCA to do a little post-meeting “interpretation” or . . . someone said above “spin,” in order to shape that communication’s broader interpretation.  That’s fine.  I expect the same thing from the Communion Partners, and from the ACI, and from Fulcrum, and from various other oft-competing groupings. 

And don’t worry.  I’ll apply the same standards to their attempts as I have to Jensen’s.

I’d really rather we look with clear eyes at communications—not the various group’s spin attempts to make something better than it was.

All in all, I think the South to South communique was actually better than I had hoped it would be, although there are plenty of flaws and weak points.  But I don’t need straw spun into gold—I’d rather be able to see where the straw is and acknowledge it.

[15] Posted by Sarah on 5-2-2010 at 10:09 AM · [top]

Sarah,

1. You wrote:

Here’s the first reference: “But the communiqué goes as far as is possible to recognizing the authenticity of the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) and declaring this body to be the true heirs of the Anglican tradition on that continent. This is precisely what the GAFCON/FCA Primates Council did in 2009 ...”

Clear attempt at conflation—trying to pretend as if the communique from the South to South encounter is sailing in the wake of the GAFCON/FCA Primates Council.

That’s not what “conflate” means.

I agree that ++Jensen asserts in this article that the Global South is doing something now that FCA did in 2009 –which is not conflation, rather its opposite.

2. You wrote:

Sure we can—that’s what “predictions” are for.

*LOL* Okay, let me be more specific: anyone who thinks that predictions now of what will occur at Lambeth 2018 have any more value than my predictions of what the weather will be like next week, is deluding themselves.

3. You wrote:

Um—not it’s not meaningless. It is what it is. And when the Secretary of the FCA makes pronouncements about who is or is not in the Anglican
Communion, then the actual facts become quite meaningful in response.

Well sure, but the Secretary of the FCA did not “makes pronouncements about who is or is not in the Anglican Communion”. He did however state that there was a common understanding among those present at the meeting that certain means of defining the “Anglican Communion” are no longer valid, if they ever were. This is the relevant part from ++Jensen’s article:

In the meantime, of course, there are those, notably in the West, who want to play by the old institutional rules. They would argue that ACNA cannot be part of the Anglican Communion because it has not passed the tests of admission via the Anglican Consultative Council. This is so artificial as to be risible. As the last paragraph of the communiqué observes, the unreformed ‘instruments of communion’ (who invented such an inelegant phrase?) are archaic remnants of a system which has failed. The Global South is vibrant with spiritual reality. It has taken a time for them to break the courteous habit of deference, but they have now chosen reality, not the artificial constructs dominated by the money and politics of western churches.

Now, I wasn’t at GSE, so I can’t comment on whether ++Jensen’s observations are correct or not. But they do seem consistent with the plain words of the communique. Nor do they come as a surprise, since it has been pretty clear that this is the prevailing view through much of the Global South for some time, and going far beyond FCA. It certainly appears to be the view held by ++Anis and ++Ernest.

Those who hold that view are not going to care whether or not ABC or ACC recognise a province as part of the Communion.

4. You wrote:

RE: [Michael A:] “So its not an issue of what FCA is going to define, but what the Global South is going to define. And yes, they can redefine it as they please - who is going to stop them?”
[Sarah] Um no. The Anglican Communion is an organization, clearly defined, with rules and criteria. Its individual members don’t get to just call something else “Anglican Communion” with any validity.

That doesn’t appear to be what the Global South believes, whether on the basis of the communique, or ++Jensen’s observations of what happened at GSE, or recent pronouncements by primates.

Objectively, I think ++Jensen is clearly correct when he says that the Global South primates can do whatever they like and it will have “validity”. Its valid if its accepted by others as valid.

5. You wrote

Oh, don’t get me wrong. I have no doubt that the 8 Primates that are a part of the FCA will form their lips and tongue into the shapes of the words “Anglican Communion”—just as, for instance, Elizabeth Kaeton is
capable of forming her lips and tongue into the shapes and sounds of “orthodox” and “catholic” and “evangelical” and just as I can shape my lips and tongue into the shapes and sounds of the words “blonde” and
“Buddhist” and “progressive.” But forming one’s lips and tongue into the shape and sounds of certain words and using them to describe what one pleases does not make it so. It merely makes one into a deconstructionist
liar on occasion.

All very nice, but it doesn’t respond to what I wrote. Just so we don’t lose track of this, here it is again:

“If the Global South decide that they want it and will admit whom they please, who is to stop them?”

When I write “Global South”, I mean Global South, not FCA! I am sure there are many who consider the Global South primates to be “deconstructionist liars”, but that doesn’t mean that they are.

6. You wrote:

I’d really rather we look with clear eyes at communications—not the various group’s spin attempts to make something better than it was.

My point exactly. ++Jensen points out the plain meaning of the communique, particularly the last paragraph. This is to avoid the “spin” of those who try to argue that it is less than it is. He reminds us that those at the conference no longer accept a definintion of “Anglican Communion” as depending on whether one is officially recognised by ABC or named on some list held by the ACC.

[16] Posted by MichaelA on 5-2-2010 at 09:02 PM · [top]

I’s have to say that MichaelA is on the money here, and Sarah I think you are indeed reading much too much into this reflection from ++Jensen. My observations of the GSE (and I’m not FCA - yet, although ask me after the ACANZP GS next week…) concur with the carefully nuanced statement by ++Jensen. One thing that emerged very clearly from the GSE is that while sharing profound commonality of convictions, the GS and FCA are quite distinct entities. The GS have a missional agenda specific to their context, and western guests will be just that: guests - and rightly so. The GS will (by definition) always be a sub-entity within whatever perception of the AC one works with. The GS will always be ‘non-global north’ (however that is conceived), and are increasingly less driven or shaped by euro-centric or north american agendas.

The FCA has a quite different purpose and scope for operation and fellowship, and it is a confusion of identity to believe they are essentially the same. There is no conflation here, and indeed (to the contrary) a conviction that it is best for both to remain in healthy communication but otherwise pursuing their distinctive agendas.

I would also suggest that ++Jensen is little concerned with spin (its actually just not in his nature), and in Australia is renowned in the general media as someone who gives a straight answer to an honest question.

What ++Jensen does do - and in my opinion quite perceptively - is place the plain meaning of the communiqué against the backdrop of his particular observations of the context of the GSE as an event. I really do not think he is claiming anything more than that, and is otherwise quite keen to keep GS quite separate from the FCA.

[17] Posted by Tim Harris on 5-2-2010 at 09:37 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.