A GAFCON Parable

In other words, saying “You done me wrong” and doing nothing in reply to the wrong done is equivalent to doing the absolute worst thing one could have done in the first place.  Lately, I’ve often thought “stayers” are like the one who trusted in the wrong armor.

Thanks, Fr. Kennedy, for the sobering story.  Blessings aplenty to you and yours.

Matt,

Are you implying that by not breaking with Canterbury the GAFCON movement is failing?

No.

I am implying that if this meeting turns out to be another meeting wherein we are told to wait and that no structural differentiation whatsoever is made; that if we leave here with a nagging message that the ABC must “Do something” and that in the meantime we will “obey scripture” and “plant churches”; that if we leave here having taught the ABC that we will NEVER do anything more than meet and whine and make “important statements” then GAFCON will have been a dramatic failure. The ABC and his successors will know precisely how to deal with us.

There are many things that might be done to provide structural differentiation short of a complete break with Canterbury. Those things, I think, must be done

if we leave here having taught the ABC that we will NEVER do anything more than meet and whine and make “important statements” then GAFCON will have been a dramatic failure.

Matt, another perspective:
- The conservative side have successfully shown by their actions in the last 5 years that they WILL take a stand (offering covering to those leaving TEC and Canada and thereby breaking the taboo of invading the territory of another diocese, the reality of GAFCON and the boycott of Lambeth; numerous calls for discipline although those were ignored)

Archbishop Jensen said it best in this statement on Ruth Gledhill’s ,<a href =“http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/06/gafcon-there-wi.html”> blog </a>:

“I’m not saying to the Americans: ‘Pull your head in,’ ” says Jensen. “We said that five years ago, and that didn’t work. They will do their thing. But if they do do that thing, then their freedom frees us as well.”

So the time for fighting the rising liberalism is at an end for now. They are going to do what they are going to do. No one in authority is prepared to stop this tide. So let them carry on. Once the fruit of what they have started takes hold, then what is left of the rest of the communion will have the courage to say “But we are no longer Christians. We have sold our heritage”.

Prepare for that time by having the lifeboats prepared.

What is a lifeboat?
Look at what Sydney is doing. Its planting mission congregations ‘across the borders’ of its diocese.
Look at what Nigeria is doing to combat its enemy. Its taking the territory from under them using mass evangelism.

GAFCON will be a failure if the next 10 years is spent fighting the liberals in the church, and does not turn its head to evangelism. It will be a success if in 10 years time, the liberal church has continued to shrink by 20%, and the conservative evangelical church has grown 50%.

PS: I hope the representatives of the delegations facing the worst persecution are all going to stand up sometime and thank every one of the representatives from the rest of the world for having the courage to “Stand Firm” with you all in your hour of need. Even by an act as simple as agreeing to attend GAFCON. They have stood with you, and in a number of cases have faced extreme pressure back home for having the courage to do that, and in the worst cases like Archbishop Akinola, they have been slandered, and had their good name dragged through the mud in an attempt to get them to back away.

The good man who lost his ring to his friend turned his cheek, but did not pray for the man or give his watch also.
The good man who lost his wife to his friend turned his cheek, but did not pray for the man or for his wife, or give his daughter also.
The good man who lost his son to the world turned his cheek, but did not pray for the “friend”, or his own son, and did not give himself to the “friend” either.

We are not the “friend.”  We are not the man.  We are not the wife.  We are the son who realizes his father must have been seduced by another man all along.

Deliver me from evil.
Let me be known by another name.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/25/anglicans-vow-no-schism-over-gays-dogma/

I think I’m finally getting the brilliance of the people in charge here.

The good ship is sailing. Some people saw the rocks in the distance and cried out to the captain to turn the ship around. The captain has laughed at them and said “what rocks you fool?”, but he agrees to slow the ship. The passengers continue to party on. There is no longer time to turn the ship. The passengers who saw the rocks have prepared the lifeboats, but no one wants to get in. They realise the only way to get the passengers to safety before they get too intoxicated as the night goes on is to allow the captain to go full steam ahead towards the rocks so that the passengers can see them while they are still sober enough to save themselves.

GAFCON needs to prepare the lifeboats. And stop delaying the boat, and let the captain move it to full steam ahead. Its the only way to save the passengers, but its too late now to save the ship.

Give the liberals free reign. Give them enough rope to hang themselves. The passengers are only a bit tipsy now, they will be able to see the rocks. Move the lifeboats into place so they don’t drown in the sea when they jump overboard.

Matt+, This is beginning to look like another Plano but just bigger. True Anglicanism needs more than a pep rally. We need decisive action. If we begin to hear that old playground taunt, “We haven’t left you, you’ve left us,” and that tired sophism, “We’re the Anglican Communion in this place,” then we’ll know it’s all over and the revisionists will have won the day and the war. Nevertheless, a few days remain and maybe we’ll be surprised.

I am implying that if this meeting turns out to be another meeting wherein we are told to wait and that no structural differentiation whatsoever is made; that if we leave here with a nagging message that the ABC must “Do something” and that in the meantime we will “obey scripture” and “plant churches”; that if we leave here having taught the ABC that we will NEVER do anything more than meet and whine and make “important statements” then GAFCON will have been a dramatic failure.

Do you actually see this as a risk, Matt?  It would seem that just holding Gafcon is an action of differentiation all by itself.  What I read in what is coming out of Gafcon is that I have one of two tasks before me.  Either (1) leave TEC for a parish under a Gafcon bishop, and do what I can to spread the Good News and bring as many people to Christ as I can, and constantly work to bring my little part of the Anglican world back to our Lord. Or (2) stay in TEC, and do what I can to spread the Good News and bring as many people to Christ as I can, and constantly work to bring my little part of the Anglican world back to our Lord.  Which, at my level in the Church, is the same choice I would face if Gafcon had declared a new communion.
  By its next GC, TEC will have lost another 50,000-100,000 members, by the GC after that, and additional 250,000 (based on age demographics as well as people leaving for theological reasons).  By the time the Covenant is signed, they will be lucky to muster a total membership of 1.5 million.  Meanwhile, the Church of Nigeria grows by about that number every year.  In 30 years, Trinity Wall Street will become the Trump Cathedral, and KJS and VGR will go to the Caribbean Island that TEC will buy for the retirement village for remaining pensioners, and live out the rest of their lives in idle luxury.

#9 - what more would you have them do? They have attempted discipline, but those in authority have undermined all of their efforts, and they don’t have the numbers to override them. 

Yes, they have lost a key battle. No, they have not lost the war. Its time to rally the troops, resupply and get more troops into the battlefield. Another battle when they don’t have the numbers will just be another defeat and may prove fatal. To get more troops into the battlefield, they need to give the enemy space to pillage and burn a few more villages. Then those villagers will finally join the battle. Remember, Germany won the first few battles. But they lost the war once they showed their true colours, and made more enemies. The battle is not over. Truth will triumph in the end.

My prayer for GAFCON is that the Holy Spirit speaks loud and clear to those attending.  And that He says to go to Lambeth, change the agenda despite the ABofC, and expell TEC and the Church of Canada.  The orthodox have the majority, it would be a disaster if they don’t act where the Instruments of Unity are failing to act.

When the ABC acted to thwart the efforts of the Primate’ Meeting in DES, several things happened.  One of which was a devaluation of the instruments of unity as a system for governance and discipline.  The ABC had to know that this would be a consequence, but was willing to accept it as the cost of shielding TEC. 

The instruments may have residual value, but they have been demonstrated as ineffective in addressing the problem.  Acknowledgement of that fact is not the same as “schism,” “forming a new communion,” or “rejection of Canterbury.”  Some have argued that the ABC and the AC, as structured, are unable to exercise any meaningful governance and discipline; the ABC’s actions have been largely consistent with this assessment.

One message I have heard from GAFCON thus far is the enrichment of the Communion through renewal, a laudable thing.  My hope is that, in the context of this renewal, GAFCON will also spearhead a system of governance and discipline in addition to the historic instruments.  The historic instruments may continue to serve whatever functions or roles they have in the past, to the extent that they do not interfere with this system of governance and discipline.

David+, in my opinion, the primates and bishops who are now attending GAFCON and who will be at Lambeth are going to have to make it clear that it will not be merely a “tea and crumpets and get acquainted gathering on the lawn with Her Majesty.”  I would rather see them take over and scotch the whole thing, than to let Rowan Cantuar stage it as planned.

The man was actually negligent because he had not taken appropriate and wise measures to safeguard his ring, family and home against theft, vandals and opportunists.

Matt+, are you concerned that GAFCON may not have the will even to set up an orthodox “Anglican Fellowship”?  Your post prompts (even begs?) that question.

Cennydd, those orthodox bishops and primates that have announced they will attend Lambeth need the support and presence of those who have said they are not attending.  Without all of the Orthodox members there, the orthodox will not have the numbers needed to change the agenda and change Lambeth into a decision making body which would force ++Williams to act or be seen as excommunicated as well as the North American revisionists.  I support the Pope’s hope that the Lambeth Conference will decide what the Anglican Church really is - revisionist unitarians or orthodox Christian.

Matt, you are harshing my GAFCON mellow for certain.

#17 David+
Those not attending Lambeth have repeatedly said they don’t have the power to force any changes. Lambeth Palace and the ACC by their actions have undermined every attempt at discipline. If they go to Lambeth they will be painted as the villians, and they will lose, as there is not enough support in the communion for discipline. They will be branded trouble makers and schismatics and homophobes influenced by a small group of disaffected Americans. You’ve seen the press coverage of GAFCON - if they attempt a takeover at Lambeth you can imagine the outcome. The Evangelicals have already fractured - Fulcrum and ACI spend most of their time demonising the GAFCON folks. Its a battle that cannot be won, the timing is wrong.

They need to let the liberals have free reign for a few more years, and prepare the lifeboats for when the inevitable shipwreck happens. The leadership is showing wisdom in choosing the timing of battle.

“A few more years?”  By then the Anglican Communion might as well be called “The Episcopal Communion.”  Sorry, but no thank you…..I will have no part of that!

GAFCON bishops and jurisdictions must SACRAMENTALLY DIFFERENTIATE themselves from the ‘Lambeth Communion’, even if they don’t (yet) DISAFFILIATE... or it will be, as you say, just another pep rally.

Here’s how:

The actions of PEcUSA and others over the last 40 years have revealed that the Anglican Communion is not a communion. It has no theological norms, no mutual accountability, etc. It’s just a fraternity.

For jurisdictions to be in communion requires shared theological basics, a shared sacramental theology, and mutual recognition of clergy. The “Anglican Communion” does not have this and, as it has been shown, has no mechanism to censure or eject a member who violates such norms even if it did.

This means that GAFCON bishops are in a position in which they could say:

The Anglican Communion, as currently constituted, is not a genuine ‘communion’, but rather a fellowship of independent, non-mutually-accountable jurisdictions. We affirm our continued membership in that fellowship. However, we also affirm that, spiritually, we are no longer in communion either with PEcUSA or with any bodies or clergy that are in communion with that organization, even if those bodies are, like us, members of the mere fellowship called the “Anglican Communion”.

The next step would be to draft a real Covenant (not the increasingly meaningless draft that the ABC is circulating) which insists on those requisite basics of faith (Scripture, Creeds, etc) and practice—the “yardstick” against which membership in a real Anglican Communion would be measured and violations against which would cause censorship, temporary excommunication (while the situation was addressed), or even expulsion. The member jurisdictions would then say to the rest of the “Anglican Fraternity”:

We hereby present this substantial ‘Anglican Confession’ setting out the basic principles of Scriptural and creedal Christianity, as well as of its basic practices and applied teachings, which we hold to be essential in defining the Church and the faith in the Anglican traditoin. These requirements includes the unequivocal and complete breaking all spiritual and sacramental communion with apostates and heretics (though you’re welcome to remain in non-sacramental ‘associations’ with them, like the “Lambeth Anglican Communion”). We, who have signed it, recognize in each other, thereby, sufficient common ground in faith and practice to be in full communion with each other—recognizing and accepting each others beliefs, sacramental theology, and clergy—and we invite the other bodies in the ‘Lambeth Fellowship’, to consider joining us in this Confession-defined communion.

.

In other words—the GAFCON jurisdictions can stay “in” the “Lambeth Fellowship” (which is called the “Anglican Communion”) in just the same way PEcUSA and the AciC are in it—i.e. hanging out for meetings but completely ignoring any of its resolutions or the beliefs and practices of some of its other members—while at the same time (and far more importantly and relevantly) forming a real Anglican Communion. Not to “replace” the Lambeth Fellowship, but to create a new thing to do what people used to (mistakenly) think the Anglican Communion was actually doing.

BUT, to do this, these jurisdictions would have to clearly state—forcefully, publicly, and unequivocally—that:
(a) the Anglican ‘Communion’, as such, is not a communion in the ‘catholic’ and ‘orthodox’ sense (i.e. spiritual and sacramental) and that
(b) while remaining members of that “fellowship”, they hold themselves to be completely out of communion with heretical and apostate jurisdictions (e.g. PEcUSA) and
(c) out of communion with all jurisdictions and clergy which remain in communion with such apostates. And this includes ++Williams, the CoE, and even all “traditionalist” PEcUSA bishops who have not yet left PEcUSA, including +Duncan, +Iker, etc. At least until those bishops finish leaving PEcUSA.

Remember, both the sacramental and the institutional defintions (and the canons & constitutions of PEcUSA, to which member dioceses sign on, make this explicit) of membership in PEcUSA and its H.O.B. make is quite clear that membership in that body means being in communion with all its bishops. If any meaningful new structure is to emerge, it has to be clear... and not characterized by the “ignored boundaries” and “special pleading” which have characterized things to date. +Iker and +Duncan are fine fellows, solid in basic theology, and strong supporters of GAFCON and the Global South. But they are, until they resign from the HOB and leave PEcUSA, in jurisdictional and sacramental communion with the apostates. (Which is, itself, a theological problem.)

.
What I think helps make things “inchoate” right now is the attempt both to speak and act as if the “Anglican Communion” really were a communion, while at the same time to try to come up with various incoherent ways (e.g. “impaired communion”) to claim that, nevertheless, member jurisdictions, while both “in communion” with ++Williams and the CoE, aren’t in communion with each other.

It’s that incoherence which needs to be addressed—either by a ‘catholic’ approach of differentiating ‘Anglican fellowship’ from “communion”... or by a ‘protestant’ approach of jettisoning historic Christian (and Anglican) definitions of “communion”, “church” and “episcopacy” altogether.

Because it is, ultimately, that incoherence, NOT PEcUSA which is at the root of the current problem. Sure, the “tipping point” has been the homosexualist heresy and the U.S. and Canada have been the locations where the apostasy (40+ years in the making) has finally gotten the Anglican world’s attention. But next time it’ll be somewhere else and with some other issue.

Sure, you can address this particular problem and heresy. But unless you solve the underlying problem—that of theological norms, sacramental communion, and jurisdictional accountability—you leave the door open for the whole thing to happen all over again… and even more decades of centrifugal disintegration.

.

pax,
LP

Short version —

Create a NEW BODY within the “Lambeth Fellowship” (the not-Anglican not-a-communion “Anglican Communion”) based on theological & sacramental norms and on mutual accountability.

Not to “replace” (or even “revive”) the Lambeth Fellowship, but to create A NEW THING to do what people used to (mistakenly) think the Anglican Communion was actually doing.

You can stay in the “Lambeth Fellowship” if you want—that’s sacramentally and theologically meaningless, as has been amply demonstrated by PEcUSA—just be clear that such membership is merely a fraternal affiliation… and that what really matters is this new, genuine Communion among portions of that fellowship.

Multiple effective structures and relationships have been (and are continually being) built among the orthodox since 1994 (First meeting of the Global South) until the 2008 GAFCON meeting. 

Parishes and now dioceses are receiving spiritual support and ‘safe harbor’  Several groups of Anglicans are joining together.  A post-Lambeth meeting of orthodox is already scheduled. 

When a journey gets long and hard and you are exhausted, remember where you started out and what God has accomplished so far. 
Remembering all the ways He has shown His faithfulness along the way builds and sustains our faith.

The Lord will honor honesty and integrity.
It is not honest to say that you are not breaking with Canterbury, when in fact you are in all but name. It is also a losing strategy. Confusion—as to status, structure and most importantly, message—causes distance between an organization and those it seeks to attract. 

The time for timidity is passed.  We need a clear organization, with a clear Biblically based message, led by dynamic communicators, bolstered by prayer.  Resources and time are too short to waste another minute on the current Anglican covenant process; or to critique the shoe choices of the next Episcopal same sex clergy couple to wed.  The average person who desperately needs Christ doesn’t give a whit about Anglican or Episcopal politics. 

We need new wineskins. Not just a discussion about about new wineskins.

We are divided…this is a positive..the question is are we going to give away the ring/wife/son/?  I have finally come to the sad conclusion that it is an either or situation for us all; some of us are just a lot slower to realize what we have given up in the name of Patience?, Love? Understanding? UNITY?, the love of our “Church” and tradition…TEC has become/ is the Trojen horse

What is the post-Lambeth meeting which has been scheduled?

I stayed in ECUSA through GC2003.  As Senior Warden I urged the parish to be patient; surely something would be done by GC2006.  It came and went and I urged the Vestry to make plans to leave; leave the building if we had to, but leave.
Sadly, I and my family left for the AMiA (not sad to be in the AMiA; sad to leave friends and family behind).
These comments begin to sound like those after GC2006. “let’s wait and see”, “let’s give them some time”, —till clarity comes we ‘stand firm’

Hal9000,

surely something would be done by GC2006

Um….. by whom? By the radicalized GenCon deputies? By the do-nothing institutionalist-middle bishops? Who was going to “do something” at GC06? Here’s a quick summary of the makeup of those in attendance:

60% were middle-of-the-road, don’t-bother-me-please, do-nothing institutionalists.

30% were swishy gays, spiky-haired angry lesbians, and aging doe-eyed Birkenstock-wearing hippies.

10% were orthodox Christians who understood the danger to the church and wanted to do something about it. Far fewer than half of those actually a) had a coherent plan that didn’t involve sniping at each other over their pet issues *cough*women’s ordination*cough*, b) were in a position to try and implement the plan, and c) had the cajones to do so.

My point is: You can have Kendall and Drell on the floor of the HoD, and +Iker in the HoB, and David Anderson and Ellis and Cynthia Brust in the background, all standing firm and raising hell, but when they’re up against the Jabba-the-Hut-like intransigence of the institutionalist middle, and the aggressive and organized zeal of the radical revisionists, to say it’s an “uphill battle” is an understatement.

I know it sounds like I’m reading you the riot act, and in a way I guess I am, but it’s addressed to everyone who thought that “something would be done” without THEIR DOING IT. If things are going to change, they’re going to have to change from the bottom up. Parishioners are going to have to make their views - and their demands, especially regarding funding, preaching, and teaching - known to their vestry. Vestries are going to have to keep rectors in check. EVERYONE is going to have to be a constant presence in their bishops’ offices, letting it be known what they expect, and what they are and are not going to put up with. This is not Rome - we possess the power of the purse and the power of the vote, and not to use them in the defense of the faith is a dereliction of our duty.

So everybody - starting TODAY:

GET OFF YOUR BUTTS AND DO SOMETHING TO SAVE YOUR CHURCH.

Observing (#11):

what more would you have them do?

Is the answer to this question not obvious?  The answer is to break communion with the Episcopal Church—clearly and explicitly.  No more euphemisms like “tearing the fabric,” “impaired communion,” and so forth.

“Breaking communion” means:
<ul>
<li>TEC is no longer recognized as a Christian Church</li>
<li>Members of TEC are not allowed to receive communion in GAFCON parishes</li>
<li>Members of GAFCON parishes are not allowed to receive communion in TEC parishes</li>
<li>TEC clergy are not allowed to administer the sacraments or preach in GAFCON parishes</li>
<li>GAFCON clergy are not allowed to administer the sacraments or preach in TEC parishes</li>
<li>GAFCON parishes will not issue letters of transfer for their members to join TEC parishes</li>
<li>GAFCON parishes will not accept letters of transfer from TEC parishes; TEC members who join GAFCON parishes do so by a profession of faith which specifically rejects the errors of TEC.</li>
</ul>
(Note that this discipline applies to all members and clergy of TEC, including those who style themselves “orthodox.”  Those who remain in TEC are in fellowship with the heterodox, and thus compromise their own orthodoxy.)

That is not “creating a schism”; it is recognizing and acting on a schism that has already occurred, a schism which TEC created by its apostasy.  TEC has been called to account for its heterodoxy and heteropraxis; it is clear that neither repentance on the part of TEC nor discipline on the part of the Anglican Communion is forthcoming.  It is long past time to “mark and avoid” (Ro 16.17).

At a certain point, the only way to stand for the Gospel in the face of manifest error is excommunication.  Is there really any doubt that such a point has been reached?

Greg -
Thanks - I think.  My point was that I *did* do something, many somethings.  That wasn’t being wistful; it was the fact that some of the comments were beginning to sound like those after 2003 and 2006.  Like many I *hoped* something would happen; like some I did something and am now in a growing, bible-centered, salvation preaching, outreach and mission-focused Anglican church.

I agree with Greg - don’t hope and wish _only_; be fully prepared to DO what the Lord leads you to do.

Hal

That parable, and Matt’s comments, don’t give one a positive sense about the Gafcon gathering. I read the ENS report, which when understood in light of what is written here must have been fairly on target. I’m sorry.

“I know it sounds like I’m reading you the riot act, and in a way I guess I am, but it’s addressed to everyone who thought that “something would be done” without THEIR DOING IT. If things are going to change, they’re going to have to change from the bottom up. Parishioners are going to have to make their views - and their demands, especially regarding funding, preaching, and teaching - known to their vestry. Vestries are going to have to keep rectors in check. EVERYONE is going to have to be a constant presence in their bishops’ offices, letting it be known what they expect, and what they are and are not going to put up with. This is not Rome - we possess the power of the purse and the power of the vote, and not to use them in the defense of the faith is a dereliction of our duty.

So everybody - starting TODAY:

GET OFF YOUR BUTTS AND DO SOMETHING TO SAVE YOUR CHURCH. “

Greg: you are so correct. I wish you would place the above statement as a banner on the front of this website.

I think that what GAFCON needs in order to be successful is:
1) a realistic plan towards a “GAFCON” covenant.  Such a covenant should be targetted for the long-term vision of Anglicanism.  This covenant should function as a gate-keeper for Provincial membership in a voluntary international organization.
2) a realistic plan for guidance structures of this new voluntary organization, including primates’ meetings and other conciliar meetings.
3) an umbrella plan for overseeing the orthodox in North America.  This should involve two seperate plans for those who wish to work inside TEC/ACC (use the Communion Partners Plan) and those who have left/want to leave TEC/ACC.  The latter should be created as a Province recognized by emergent voluntary organization.

Most certainly do not formally break with Canterbury.  Do begin the realistic creation of structures to form a “shadow” communion within the “Anglican Communion (which is really a Federation)”.  Don’t worry about having the new structures approved of or blessed by Canterbury (won’t happen) but don’t worry about being expelled from the Anglican Communion for planning a new North American Province (won’t happen).  As Abp. Jensen said - what we have learned over the last 5 years is that there is no discipline in the Anglican Communion.  There will be expressions of displeasure, but no consequences.  The liberals will not be stopped.  So we have the choice - either keep fighting a losing battle in the hopes that liberals will somehow be disciplined; OR accept the lack of boundaries and lack of discipline in the AC, and use that freedom to our advantage to create new structures for orthodox Anglican growth and to create the blueprint for the new longterm Anglican Communion.

#27 - AMIA is an excellent model to follow. Break the ties, re-brand under a different banner to differentiate yourself, stop fighting the liberals and start evangelising. If that model continues to be followed, the AMIA will be bigger than TEC in a few years.

But it only applies if you are in the minority. How did you get to be the minority?

Imagine if you will an organisation with 7 people. 2 are conservative. 2 are liberal. And 3 are neutral. One of the liberals does something really bad. The conservative member asks for action. But the other conservative member is upset with that conservative member about something else. No action happens. One of the conservatives leaves. The balance of power now moves to the liberal side.

Now imagine if instead of leaving, he did nothing. The liberal member then did something really bad again. And again. Finally, some of the neutral members were stirred to action. The liberal member leaves. The balance of power moves to the conservative side.

At the moment the Anglican Communion has its balance of power firmly in the conservative wing. But the conservatives are fighting each other. Some want to leave. Some want to stay. If they leave, the balance will shift to the liberals. Yes, the conservative who leaves will have a pure organisation. But it will be a really small organisation which will be hard to attract people to as it will be unbalanced. People are attracted to the neutral centre. He would have done better to:
- do nothing. Let the liberal member continue to irritate the organisation until they do take action, or
- heal the divisions with the other conservative member, or
- bring in another conservative friend to shift the balance further to his side, or
- persuade one of the neutral members to move to the conservative side.

The Anglican Communion has not reached the stage TEC has reached. No one wants to take action to get rid of the irritating liberal yet. But given time, they will. Be patient. Build your side. Evangelize. Let the liberal continue to irritate the neutral members. They will act, eventually. And then you will hold the power base.

“Do you actually see this as a risk, Matt?”

yes

Well this can be a form of Anglican Jujitsu:
The ABC, ACO, and Lambeth are effectively useless.
* Therefore simply institute a new reality-with-muscle inside the useless shell of the Old Anglican Communion.
* Elect a “First-Among-Equals”, then simply set up the New Anglican Communion inside the dried up husk of the Old.
* Since the apparatus of the Old has proven itself to be totally toothless, then simply proceed with the New, complete with agreed-upon structures, faith-covenants, etc, at once welcoming into the new Communion all scattered Anglicans throughout the world.
* What the ABC says or thinks is irrelevant, since he has chosen to assume a powerless posture, when not undermining any and all attempts at reforming the Old.
* God bless our new Anglican First among Equals, and the New Communion !

Observing, here is the problem as I see it.

The existing Anglican Communion is defined by its connection to Canterbury. Lambeth proves that—the invitations were the key and the ABC demonstrated his control.  The orthodox GS may have the vast majority of churchgoers, but there is zero chance that the COE, and its selection of the next ABC, is going to change course.  Its orthodox wing in the COE is a minority, just as was the orthodox wing in TEC. The anti-Christian cultural influences on the church in England are worse than those in the US and is trending in the wrong direction. In terms of the Primates themselves, time is not on the side of the orthodox in terms of getting the votes/forces to through out TEC, the Canadian Church and others. The bottom line is that TEC is not going to be expelled from a Canterbury led Anglican Communion. The ABC has made that clear in every way possible. TEC is certainly not going to “voluntarily” withdraw from the Communion. It is fanciful to believe that is on the horizon.

Meanwhile, the longer this drags out the more liberals will use their money and power to sow subversion and discontent within the Global South. It is already happening, even in Africa. Orombi and others have been clear—they cannot continue to spend as much time and resources on Anglican Communion politics. The window of their active involvement will close, and with it any real hope of establishing an alternative international Anglican style presence.

We better have an alternative structure in place before that happens.

More thoughts toward a New Communion—organization.

Elect a “First-Among-Equals”

A more reliable (and historic, and traditional, and patristic, and Scriptural—remember Acts 15?) method is not a “first among equals”, but a council of member primates which has authority over discipline of and membership in the new Communion, and are able to examine and judge member primates, bishops and jurisdictions.

All members would be held accountable to the normative statement (a Confession or Covenant or whatever—see above) of beliefs and practices. This shouldn’t be anything “novel”, but simply a statement of basic Christian belief and Anglican practice. Authority of Scripture and the Creeds; clear statements about marriage; inviable norms for ordination; basic statements of sacramental theology. I.e. all the things required by Scriptural & Creedal Christianity (the “faith” side) and intercommunion (sacraments and clergy—the “jurisdiction” side).

Any member jurisdiction which violated these requirements (including by being “in communion” with heretics and apostates) would have their membership and intercommunion “suspended” to give them opportunity to correct and reform… if that wasn’t done adequately within (say) 5 years, they would be ejected from the Communion.

Any member jurisdiction that had bishops who violated these requirements and didn’t discipline them would be given a warning and a grace period to do so (say 3 years) and then, if internal discipline was not carried out, suspended as above. (This would follow the Scriptural model of reproving an erring brother).

.

When novel issues came up which required a communion-wide position to be taken, follow an old medieval monastic model. First no change is made—no “period of reception”. The tradition and status quo stay in place until positively changed.

The issue is formally presented and discussed at the first international meeting (every 5 years) and, if all agree, a proposal is circulated for member churches to examine. At the second meeting, any changes are agreed upon and the proposal is voted on. If it passes by a supermajority, it still isn’t implemented, but is taken back for additional consideration. At the third meeting (10 years later than the first… allowing the issue to be more than a “passing fad” and making manipulation difficult) that previous vote must be confirmed by another vote. Only then is a change implemented.

In all these things, authority comes from the “episcopal authority” exercised in the meetings and votes of the council of primates. Have a “first among equals” as a “president” of that council if you want, but the authority is vested in the council (as it was in the twelve apostles), not in an individual (Roman papal model), in un-Church-like modern “democratic” assemblies of laity (Protestant model), or in some manipulative bureaucracy or institution (Lambeth model).

.

And, again, all this could be set up with members still nominally members of the non-sacramental non-communion “fraternity” which is all that the Lambeth Anglican Fellowship (which I’m going to start using, because I like the LAF acronym… LAF out loud!) really is.

And it could also include members not in that LAF fraternity—e.g. a new non-Lambeth U.S. jurisdiction.

.

pax,
LP

The most chilling line: “Thank you,” said his friend, “I will always hear your claim.”

#14 Cennyd - have you not read how Lambeth is organized, into focus groups, run by professional moderators being paid for by COE, with the orthodox bishops either being a minority in the groups or a minority focus group? There is no takeover coming - the ABC has crafted a plan to squash any dissent.

#37 - I agree with you…

But I still don’t believe there is the sort of unity required to bring about that change at this stage. Its still not evident to the neutral majority where Canterbury is, or is headed. Let them attend Lambeth. Don’t provide any balance from the conservative side. Allow the liberal agenda to take over. Let that neutral minority have their eyes opened to the fact that they are the ‘new conservatives’. Then they will join the battle as conservatives and not neutral members.

And if the conservatives move onto evangelism instead of bickering with the liberals, they will add to their numbers and be more attractive to join, as no one wants to join a church at war with itself. This war cannot be won yet.

jamesw #33 has it about right, and it’s what I’m hoping they will do.

Thanks Matt.  We need to see the forest for the olive trees.

Mad Potter, there is an impatient little gnome within that is inclined to agree with you.  But I also know that such decisions should not be made quickly, and perhaps one week of discernment just isn’t enough.  And yet…. and yet…

I want patience and I WANT IT NOW.

Mad Potter (#46):

My point was to illustrate what genuine “breaking of communion” (beyond mere tut-tutting) would look like.  “GAFCON parish” was a shorthand for “a parish under the authority of a bishop who has broken communion with TEC.”  It certainly does not refer to any already-existing organizational status.

It was a confusing phrase, for which I apologize.  I just could not think of a better one.

A false church (like the harlot in Revelation) is wearing the robes and crown of the Episcopal Church (properties and offices).

LP (#38):

I agree with the general tenor of this comment (as with all of your invariably incisive comments), but I must quibble with the notion that a synod at any level in the Church’s polity can do without a primus inter pares.  Primacy and conciliarity are complementary, mutually necessary concepts.

The principle is well-articulated in Apostolic Canon 34:

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge the one who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish [i.e. diocese], and the country places which belong to it.  But neither let him who is the first do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

Even in the Apostolic Council in Acts 15, while all were equal in voice and authority, it fell to James to articulate the consensus of the Apostles’ witness.  He, as bishop of what was then the Mother Church of Jerusalem, was the one who is first among them.

If there is truly to be a communion and not just a federation or an alliance, there must be both conciliarity and primacy.

“Developing our ‘tier’ of the AC” (ref ABC’s Reflection) could be a good *label* for what many here (and there?) are describing.

GAFCon is one tier, Lambeth is both tiers mixed indescriminately.  GAFCon is decision-making without the people that TWR said should not participate in decision-making (see Nazir-Ali’s latest statement).  Lambeth is all gathered in fellowship but not(?) making decisions.

One real problem being solved here is that others now have claimed the power to call meetings when ABC won’t.  (The ABC has been acting like King John before the Magna Carta, when he refused to call Parliament into session.)

Now, I would love to have a name for our tier - one that even the bishops of L.A. won’t want to redefine and share (Primitive? Neanderthal? Bottom-Feeders?). Surely there is something.

#40   Festivus, I agree with you except for one point:  It is The Episcopal Church which is paying the “facilitators,” not the Church of England….since it is TEC’s money which goes into their coffers via the ACC office.

I like what you say, #36.  I think it is likely that a council will be established before the end of GAFCON.  At the very least, there must be oversight as good as the Dar model (an international council) to accept the orthodox who are now outside of TEC. 

I think it is very curious and very suggestive that we are not hearing more about ++Venables and that +Duncan is not present.  I don’t believe this shows the disinterest of either of them; I believe they are hard at work on plans and statements that will help us into the future.  I have not been disappointed in GAFCON, and I don’t think we begin to see what will emerge from it.

I think I’m finally getting the brilliance of the people in charge here.

There are people in charge here?

Primacy and conciliarity are complementary, mutually necessary concepts. The principle is well-articulated in Apostolic Canon 34

Isn’t this describing the relation we’d describe as that between bishops and their archbishop with a national jurisdiction? Notice that it’s how the “bishops of each nation” who look to the “one” of them who is their “head”, which head, in turn, only acts in consultation with them all.

On the “international” level, isn’t the patristic model the Ecumenical Council? It was that model I was envisioning.

Sure, there can be a primus inter pares at that level as well—the Roman “primacy of honor” among his fellow metropolitians, for example, or the kind of “primacy” the ABC ought to have and exercise.

But the authority of that international / interjurisdictional council comes not from any “unique authority” of that one “equal” (as it does in the Roman context), but rather from the assembled council of primates with equal authority. I.e. the authority of “headship” in their own jurisdiction’s house of bishops and their single “vote and voice” in the council of primates, where they serve as both head and representative of their jurisdiction’s bishops.

Sure, in a “new Anglican Communion” there ought to be a new and orthodox C of E, and it ought to have an archbishop of the see of Canterbury who is the “first among equals” at that council. But the difference from the present situation would not be that he has any more “authority” or “power” over non CofE jurisdictions, any more than those other primates have authority with in the CofE—but rather that that council, as a whole, actually had jurisdiction and authority over the whole Communion (unlike the current LAFable situation).

pax,
LP

LP (#54):

Neither the Apostolic Council nor the ecumenical councils are a very good model for what we are talking about, because they were charismatic, one-time events rather than permanent institutions for the ongoing governance of the Church.  Neither the timing, nor the outcome, nor the eventual reception by the Church, of an ecumenical council can be predicted nor guaranteed in advance.

The patristic model for the ongoing governance of the Church is the provincial synod of bishops under the presidency of the bishop of the chief city (i.e. the Metropolitan).  There were no permanent structures above this level, although the chief bishop of the wider region (the Patriarch) enjoyed a primacy of honor and the right to hear appeals.

My point is that if there is to be a permanent and institutional mechanism for the governance of a “new Anglican Communion” (or whatever we are calling it), to conform to the patristic model it ought to be characterized by both conciliarity and primacy.

CJ (#55)

The patristic model for the ongoing governance of the Church is the provincial synod of bishops under the presidency of the bishop of the chief city (i.e. the Metropolitan).

I think we’re more or less in agreement, save for nuances of what we’re imagining at the very “top” level—what this “Anglican Communion Council” ought to look like.

There—in what is essentially a council of metropolitans—the Ecumenical pattern really is the only patristic one going.

Mutatis mutandis, the bishops under a metropolitan were “in” his “jurisdiction” as, today, bishops are under an archbishop or primate; as, for example, ++Akinola’s bishops in Nigeria. He’s their first among equals—for they are all equally bishops but he has jurisdictional authority over them.

But if we speak of an authoritative and judicial Council of the primates of member jurisdictions, we’re not in that situation. If you try to apply that provincial pattern “upward” (as Rome theorized in the 10th century, attempted to apply in the 11th, and only really enforced in the 16th) you get an “Anglican pope” who has “jurisdiction” over the whole earth (or, at least, all its Anglicans)—which is something Anglicanism (and the early Church) never had.

Our only other model, therefore, is the Ecumenical Council one. There you have many bishops, yes, but collected under their respective “metropolitians” (primates) who aren’t “in” each others’ jurisdictions in any way (not even the way that bishops are under the “head” of their archbishops), but meet together as jurisdictionally-independent equals.

Yes, you can speak of a primus inter pares there as well—e.g. what the See of Canterbury ought to be, or what the Orthodox themselves accept the See of Rome being among gathered metropolitans, But that is among “equals” who are jurisdictionally independent (though having a common commitment to the norms of their new Anglican Communion and common submission to the rulings of the Council)—NOT among “equals” where (though equal in “order”—episcopacy) one has jurisdictional authority over the others.

So that’s why I look toward an “Ecumenical Council” model—which, by the way, is also the medieval “conciliar” model proposed in the later part of the middle ages—rather than a “metropolitan” one for how I imagine, above, the members of a new Anglican communion balancing a “patristic” jurisdictional independence with an enforceable mutual commitment and accountability to common norms of faith and practice.

Any clearer that way?

pax,
LP

Cennydd (#14)—I’ve been at work and missed all this discussion, but “scotch” in your comment is a good word. Oh, was that a verb?!

#58 Gator:  “scotch….verb; meaning “to put an abrupt and decisive end to.”

LP:

Any clearer that way?

Yep.

You’re right, we are pretty close to agreement.  If “orthodox Anglicanism” ends up with anything at all close to what you & I are discussing, it would be both quite a good thing and also almost a miracle.  But we can hope ...

#29 Chris Jones…you’ve laid out the stark reality. I’ve been wondering when real break would come.

My initial reaction to this parable is that this is man is to be pitied for having no love;  not for the integrity of his household, not for his wife, not for his son, not for his friend, and not for himself. 

My secondary reaction is that the ending of the parable is merciful to the hearer.  It stops short of the thief disowning the friendship, which to my mind can only have one outcome, given what we know about the man’s character. 

Very depressing.  But apt.

Thanks Cennydd; I know what the verb means. The word “scotch” at first glance sent me in another grammatical direction—adjective-as-noun.

southernvirginia1,

I’ve been wondering when real break would come.

I’ve been wondering IF a real break would come.  It often seems that these Anglicans, for all their “conservatism,” cannot muster enough Catholic consciousness between them to understand why a real break is necessary.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1817878,00.html

Is there a commitment to write embarassing articles about this Conference?  Or has the conference really fizzled?

DoW

When is a real break a real break? In North America (not that I can speak for you guys) Matt Kennedy and many others have left TEC, and set up a new denomination/s.
For Uganda and Nigeria it is business as usual at home, new missionary efforts abroad and a new international group to be part of. For us Australians, we have had two very different groups within the one formal structure of anglicanism and that will continue.
Neat minds will be unsatisfied, but post gafcon how things seem, like a real break or not a real break will depend on where you are. Evangelical Anglicans will operate “inside” and “outside” formal anglicanism for decades to come.

It often seems that these Anglicans, for all their “conservatism,” cannot muster enough Catholic consciousness between them to understand why a real break is necessary.

This is why one may reasonably suggest that the only genuine theological anglocatholics (as opposed to those who merely like high-church liturgy) are found in the Continuing church movement—which, years ago, recognized the catholic and orthodox requirement to break communion when the non-negotiable essentials of “being in communion” (i.e. an agreement on the meaning of “Church”, “ordination”, the “apostolic succession” and “communion” itself) were renounced by PEcUSA.

This may help explain why things “inside” PEcUSA have shaped up as they have, with people compromising (or at least equivocating on) these issues (and, to be fair, perhaps without even recognizing or considering that fact) in order to remain in the jurisdiciton.

With the result that while those who are reacting in outrage to the latest apostasies are doing so for a variety of good reasons—essential things like Scriptural interpretation, sexual morality, etc, for which concerns they are to be commended—but not (chiefly) over issues of “communion” or “sacramentality”. Because those who had sufficient concern and “catholic belief” on those issues so as to make a break… already have. Decades ago.

Meaning that, in a sense, it’s not really fair to complain that those who are now “staying in communion” or “refusing to make a break” are lacking in what you call “enough catholic conscience” to make that break. Because if they had had it, they’d have already left before the current unpleasantness.

So while I think it makes sense to urge people to “reconsider” their position on these issues—perhaps, for some, even to consider them for the first time—there’s something a bit “inappropriate” in criticizing people too harshly for failing to have precisely those orthodox/catholic/patristic insights and perspectives that the institutions in which they’ve “grown up in the faith” have actively rejected, discouraged and suppressed.

pax,
LP

LP:
This is why one may reasonably suggest that the only genuine theological anglocatholics ... are found in the Continuing church movement ...

True; with the proviso that many former Anglo-Catholics may also be found on the far shores of the Tiber or the Bosporus, and some few (such as myself) even among the confessional Lutherans.  However, I suppose that while we may still claim to be theological Catholics, we may no longer claim to be Anglo-Catholics.

Because those who had sufficient concern and “catholic belief” on those issues so as to make a break… already have. Decades ago.

You certainly have my number.  I left in 1984.  (Actually, I realized I would have to leave on the day in September 1976 that General Convention approved WO.  I gave it a few years in case repentance might happen; in retrospect eight years was too long.)

in a sense, it’s not really fair to complain ...

I know what you mean; but I keep on trying anyway.  Even if folks have been raised in an ecclesial environment that rejects the Apostolic Tradition, that Tradition is their theological and spiritual patrimony whether they realize it or not.  Everything of value that they have been taught comes out of that Tradition, and their best hope (only hope, really) to retain such treasure as they still have is to re-appreciate and re-appropriate the one authentic Apostolic Tradition.

So I keep hawking those wares even if nobody is buying.

I’m in almost total and absolute disbelief at how poorly things seem to have gone (observing from a far, that is).  Of course, it’s difficult to know what may or may not be going on behind the scenes, but from some 12,000 + kilometers away, in sunny but burning northern California, it looks to me that where there is smoke, there’s fire.  Something seems to have gone terribly wrong so far, and I’m not sure we’ll get to the bottom of it for some time after all the respective pilgrims return to their home countries.  I do believe Matt and David+ are on the right track though. . .I believe the conservatives should ALL attend Lambeth and go with a view toward not only “being heard” once again by the benign powers that be, but to go with a view to see what God might actually do Through them as His representatives in what Machen so aptly termed “Christianity and Liberalism” under one ecclesial structure.  The era was the 1930s and the structure then in question was the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., (which as you might observe, is still going through the same challenges almost eighty years after Dr. Machen threw down the gauntlet.  The short term result of his confronting the powers that were resident at Princeton Seminary and in the Presbyterian Church were not altogether felicitous, however, the folk that went with Machen have been carrying the torch of the gospel since that day, without impediment of an ecclesiastical structure which was self-consciously opposed to what they viewed as “fundamentalism”.  Where does the AC go from here? And where do the GAFCON attendees intend to throw in their lot with all their might and mein?  Well, that’s yet to be seen, isn’t it?  We need to be in prayer for all parties concerned and not lose hope, while at the same time being as shrewd and gentle as our Savior told us to be. Shalom, in the Shar Shalom, even Jesus our Lord, and to Him be all the praise, honor and glory which are His due!

Matt+, You are there.  Are most of the participants aware of the negative reports coming from the press?  (The Time piece is only one of many panning the whole conference).  If so, is there hope that the leaders will truly lead and give hope where it is so badly needed, proving all of this discouraging reporting to be wrong?  Great ideas on this thread about declaring a new association of some kind with defined beliefs to which orthodox Anglicans from all across the Communion can in good conscience claim allegiance with joy, with a leader or some leaders who will be everything that Rowan Williams has not been and courageously defend the faith once delivered to the saints in all matters—also declaring broken communion with all those supporting TEC’s innovations.  Please please, to our orthodox friends in attendance, do not leave without doing this.  We are praying for you.  May God give all of you courage, boldness and decisiveness.
Does anyone know why Bishop Duncan is not there?  This seems incredible to me.

“Is there a commitment to write embarassing articles about this Conference?” —DoW

Absolutely, and it looks like a coordinated attack.  I can even believe that TEC and Integrity forces and the like are behind the scenes and have been hard at work with the so-called journalists.  Look at glednill’s venomous, unprofessional stories.  Look at this kind of poison About ++Akinola from the TIME article linked above:

“Meanwhile, allegations in The Atlantic magazine that participants in an anti-Muslim massacre in Nigeria had worn tags with the initials of a Christian organization run at the time by Akinola contributed to the devaluation of his leadership. That loss of stature was further accelerated this week by the unwillingness of both Akinola and his Ugandan ally Archbishop Henry Orombi to condemn the alleged rape and torture of gays in their countries.” 

Such charges, as I recall, were trumped up on both counts by exactly those same forces—not even “behind the scenes” but openly and egregiously.

But I must say that I don’t think WE and our bloggers are much better at characterizing a conference that is not even over. (It was only a failure if people expected what the press pre-proclaimed and the Gafcon leaders have disowned for a very long time—that open schism was on the agenda.  It’s absurd to read that Gafcon is a failure because the press is disappointed not to have its most hateful predictions fulfilled.)  We should wait to see what may be forthcoming.

A correction: Of course, line 6 should read Gledhill above (#71).

Nothing could be further from the truth. This conference has gone splendidly, far, far better than I had hoped or thought possible. I’ve never seen such a terrible…I was about to write “distortion” of the facts but that word implies some connection with the facts themselves…lie is a better word. The press has simply lied about this conference. Do not believe what you hear whether you are in England or sunny cali or anywhere else