Truro - the Crisis for the Communion
This is the second short part in a brief 2-part series outlining the key issues arising out of the Truro affair. The first part, the crisis Truro has brought to the ACNA, can be found here.
Second, the crisis that Truro brings to the Communion.
Simply put, Baucum/Truro have crystallised and provided validation to what is becoming increasingly clear is Justin Welby’s approach of non-discipline of heretics in the Communion as long as they will “play nice” and “reconcile” according to his own understanding of that term.
Here is Baucum’s own reflection upon the recent Reconciliation Conference he attended in Coventry (my emphasis):
The reason we were invited to have such a role at Coventry is because +Justin Welby, the then new Bishop of Durham had already heard our story last May at HTB and was deeply affected by Truro’s marriage of doctrinal and relational orthodoxy. He wanted the Church of England to witness what he witnessed. I am humbled that he is holding our example up as a model for his archiepiscopacy. The doctrinal conflict - neither in Virginia nor the Communion - has been resolved but our ability to relate to each other without enmity while still in conflict is the kind of model ++Welby promotes as a pathway toward reconciliation. This hard won space is not an end in itself, but creates a place where the doctrinal and relational wounds of the Church can be healed. I am grateful that Archbishop Welby holds up Truro’s relation to the Episcopal diocese of Virginia as a model for the rest of the Anglican Communion.
As we’ve noted recently, the process that ++Welby is setting up is not one that disciplines TEC’s heretical leadership but, rather, allows space for “conversation” with them despite the differences. Most notably (and most crucially) it continues to treat them as authentic Christian leaders.
And Truro/Baucum have lapped it up and become the poster boys for just another variation of Indababble.
And so here is the crisis for the Communion. Welby shows no indication of bringing Godly and necessary discipline. Rather than doing the right thing, demanding that repentance precede reconciliation and a place at the table for the heretics, he is instead promoting a place for them. It was entirely right that we welcomed his appointment. Here was a man with clear evangelical convictions who, perhaps, would have called TEC and the Church in Canada to account. But, sadly, it seems that he is pushing for a different outcome. He is endorsing a process that itself endorses heretics as authentic and honoured Christian leaders.
Here’s what I wrote back in November when his appointment was imminent,
Globally we will all be watching to see if he takes a firmer line with the liberals than Williams did. The ABC has incredibly powerful influence whatever he chooses to do. Williams’ inaction spoke volumes - so what will Welby do? We will, of course, be hoping he will chart a far better path, recognising that the job of the Archbishop is not simply to “chair” the Communion but to guide it and drive away false teaching. Welby has a bit of a reputation in his own diocese for not upsetting apple carts. That will have to change if he is to be the man who can help pull us back to where we should be. At a minimum we’re sure to see him advocating hard for the Covenant - but will he go further and speak out clearly against revisionism? Only time will tell.
So we wait with great anticipation. My mind is that it could go either way.
there is the other possibility; that he will be the conservatives’ Rowan Williams. When Williams was first appointed the liberals were delirious with happiness since they knew he shared their convictions. That praise soon turned to criticism and worse when he failed to deliver for them. There is a chance that Welby could do the same for us. Perhaps, like Williams, he will be so keen to hold everyone together at the table that no-one will end up wanting to come to dinner. That would be tragic and, surely, he would have the wisdom not to repeat Williams’ mistakes, but ought not to be naïve about the possibility.
I am genuinely disappointed to have been proven right on this matter. It really grieves me.
But here we are. And the critical thing we need to get our head around here is that Baucum/Truro have not only allowed themselves to be part of this capitulation to the liberals’ desire to be recognised as authentically orthodox but have actually pursued the agenda.
In doing so they have not only brought a crisis to the ACNA, but to the Communion as a whole which could only have been held together by genuine discipline but now looks closer to a final split than ever before. Can any of us really see the GAFCON movement embracing this “reconciliation” process as it currently stands?
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- Ephraim Radner on Why I Changed My Mind on Civil Marriage
- ACNA Primate: Don’t sign marriage pledge for now
- More than 150 Clergy Sign The Marriage Pledge in 48 Hours
- Oh Dear—Jim Naughton is peevish again—so give generously to the IRD
- One Black Episcopalian on Ferguson
- The Marriage Pledge and the Libertarian Solution to the Marriage Debate
- Rusty Reno Makes the Case for Clergy Cutting the Government Out of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony
Are you reading this?
Advertising on Stand Firm works!
Click here for details.