And quite what I am going to write for the newspaper, now the schism story is receding, is also not yet clear.
Here’s an idea: what say you observe and then report what is happening. I know it’s crazy, but it just might work.
This is not to say that all is well here.
This conference certainly has its share of tension. But since the leaders of GAFCON said clearly and plainly months ago that it was not their intention to actually break communion with Canterbury it is certainly no shocker that they have held true to their word.
The tension here, at least as I have observed it, has to do primarily with the question of structural differentiation.
It would be an utter disaster of incalculable proportions, in my view, to leave Jerusalem with a vague statement broadly critical of the Communion leadership that articulates a non-specific commitment to “stick together” and “stand firm” and “be bold for the sake of the gospel” without providing any substantial structurally distinct framework.
Such a statement would clearly signal that GAFCON was indeed “just another meeting”, a sort of Global Plano-style "pep-rally" as someone said yesterday.
And there is some danger of that happening.
The brighter vision is that of a “Communion within a Communion.”
If we might leave here with at least the foundations laid for a new confessional and conciliar entity with its own leadership, its own “instruments of communion”, its own process of decision-making and discipline distinct from Canterbury then we will have created, or be well along the path to creating, a cohesive entity capable of gathering, growing, and empowering orthodox Anglicans that is not dependant upon the invitational decisions of one man.
A growing, united, disciplined entity, led by men and comprised of ecclesial bodies willing to act together independently of Lambeth Palace; willing, for example, to recognize provincial entities not in Communion with Canterbury that meet given confessional standards and unwilling to recognize provinces that are in Communion with Canterbury but that don’t, would make manifest a system of ecclesial order and discipline far more effective than that which presently under-girds the Communion itself.
As Greg insightfully points out, what Canterbury does or says is now largely irrelevant. He has made himself irrelevant by virtue of either his inability to uphold the commitments of the Communion or his passive aggressive decision not to. Whatever structure emerges from GAFCON (if in fact one does emerge) should maintain the Canterbury tie but should not let concerns about the mind Canterbury determine her course.
Such a Communion within a Communion, united in purpose, structure, and faith, would over time have the weight necessary to influence and, ultimately, reform the more disorganized and confused whole. Canterbury, the ACI, the ACO, Fulcrum, et all will not like it but there is not much they will be able to do about it either.
If the groundwork for something along those lines emerges from GAFCON then I think it will prove to be a most significant gathering, genuinely historic, the beginning of a reformed and renewed Anglicanism. If it does not then I think we may have come very nearly to the end of organized resistance.
If this meeting turns out to be another meeting wherein we are told to wait and that no structural differentiation whatsoever is made; if we leave Jerusalem with a nagging statement to the effect that the Archbishop must “Do something” and that in the meantime we will “obey scripture” and “plant churches”; 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 Archbishop and his successors will know precisely how to deal with us. We will have shown that when pushed to the brink we will blink; that we do not have the will to act decisively; that GAFCON is a paper tiger, noisy but harmless.
If reporters are looking for a cliff-hanger, there it is.
Will the groundwork for a Communion within a Communion be laid in Jerusalem? Does GAFCON represent the first step in the renewal and reformation of Anglicanism? Or is GAFCON an international pep-rally, an expensive retreat culminating in the publication of a nagging communiqué?
46 Comments •
Comments:
Well presumably many of these journalists have justified their [not inexpensive] trips to Jerusalem to their editors on the basis of some earth-shattering story, pre-written or not.
I am not sure why journalists think they have the right to run riot at this conference. They were coralled at Dar and probably will be at Lambeth. The ridiculous mis-reporting makes it clear that this is absolutely necessary.
Isn’t the real story that notwithstanding the institutional and lobby blocking and denigration, that representatives of over half the world’s Anglicans are meeting for Council? I would be inclined to wait to the end and final statements [remember the flapping around at Dar before the Communique came?}