+Wright on the GAFCON statement

Oh my!
Bishop Wright, you have had my utmost respect as a theologian, Bishop, and man. And you still do. I so love your writings, respect your mind and scholarship and abilities, and appreciate your humor and approachability (there is one theological issue on which I think you have spoken boldly but provided nothing but a facade of a defense, but I will not go there in this post, as it is not the subject; besides, no man is perfect, and unsubstantiated positions are with you are by far the exception rather than the norm).
But in this case, dear Bishop, with much respect, you appear, at least to me, as an ostrich with his head not only in the sand, but having been there for over 3 decades. “The larger party where the rest of us are working for the same gospel, the same biblical wisdom, the same Lord”??? Dear Bishop Wright, are you quite serious? If so, it is hard to know even where to begin. Where have “the rest of us” been hiding? Oh what I wouldn’t give for the pleasure of meeting this “larger party” that is so committed to the ancient Christian Faith!!!
You won’t hear me claim that the GAFCON release or the Jerusalem Declaration are perfect. But I do have to admit to being a bit shocked at your statement. Do you truly believe these things? If so, I wonder what it is that has you blinded from the reality of the past 30+ years of heinous difficulty from within Anglicanism. There are, I suppose, many possibilities, and only you can truly answer. But whether it is too much time in academia (the most likely culprit for the present Archbishop of Canterbury, I’d guess), or a possible desire to posture for being the next Archbishop of Canterbury, or too little sleep, or merely a weak moment, I pray that you reconsider the phrasing of your statement.
In the peace and love of Christ, from one who truly wants to save the Anglican Communion.

The attitude expressed here in the Bishop’s observations and caution is the very stuff that slows our Communion down to a neaqr crawl when it comes to dealing with structure.  We need structure, and new energy in new structures to move us out of the immoral pit we are in and on to a more meaningful Gospel path.  What we don’t need is that old time Anglican slow-to-move and quick-to-argue attitude.

As I said on another thread. About 1200 good people assembled in Jerusalem. I am sure glad they were people who would agree to make decisions.

Bishop Wright, please get on board with GAFCON and act faithfully to end the troubles you admit. Otherwise, your contributions are meaningless mush that is only suitable for indaba groups.

Will you actually stand up and take actions against those things you say are wrong? Neither you nor GAFCON are perfect, but at least those at GAFCON are going to do something - with you or without you.

By the way, GAFCON represents the Big Party.

It should come as no surprise that Wright sees himself as a kind of vice-president, a kind of heir-apparent, to +Cantuar; thus it should come as no surprise that he’s keeping GAFCON at arm’s length, at least for now. When you see yourself as vice-president, it’s not usually in your best interest to advocate the profound shakeup of the republic. Be appreciative of whatever support +Durham gives GAFCON, but don’t expect him to jump for joy at the prospect of having his line of succession jeopardized.

In terms of strategic vision, Wright remind me of a British Howe.

Dear Tom,

Well, you helped write the Windsor Report, and have spent some time and energy telling the world what might happen if the TEC did not respond to the report in a responsible way.  Shock and surprise, five years after the installation of the Bishop of New Hampshire, after ++Rowan and som many others have temporized and covered for the act, someone acted.

If you and ++Rowan had taken ANY firm action in the past five years, if you had defended the Gospel from Unitarians acting as Anglicans these actions might not have been necessary.  As it was the Archbishop did not act and many have supported that inaction.

Sir, I respect you as a theologian and as a teacher.  I enjoyed and rejoiced in much of your teaching, but here we must disagree.

RSB

I’m with R.S. Bunker here Dear Thomas. . .I’m afraid your offering your birthright for a mess of potage. What will it take for you to see that this is a “kairos” moment, in which the Spirit of God cannot be resisted? I don’t mean this in a mean spirited way at all. . .and I do pray that at the end of the day, after you have had your many questions answered to sufficiently, you will indeed cast your lot in with us all. Shalom dear brother and father in God,
-C.A. McCoy

Dear Te Deum,
I’m glad to see that you have reconsidered your original post in response to mine. I read it earlier and opted not to respond. These are tense times, and we are all tempted to say things at times that we later wish we hadn’t. I’ve done it more times than I can reasonably count, just in the past few months, purely related to the present difficulties.
Trust me - I am not a pot-stirrer, and I do have the very best interest of both the Anglican Communion, and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in mind. I also happen to be a very big fan of Bishop Wright. That is one of several reasons that I am so woefully disappointed in his response.
There are far too many politicians in collars. I have vowed not to be one. I may go down in flames, as did the man whose name I choose to wear on this site, at the Altar (not literal flames of course), but my choosing his name not only as a username, but also choosing him as a Patron, is to remind me that if I am to suffer, it should be for righteousness’ sake, and not for some temporal agenda.
God being my helper, I intend to see that through.
God’s blessings to you, yours, the Anglican Communion, and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Pax Christi

Dear Te Deum,
I apologize for my senior moment (and I’m only 42).
Evidently you did not change your vehement dislike of my response to Bp. Wright. And so it is. I still do not dislike you, as I have no reason to, though your post and position do not make even the slightest sense. But I do defend that as your prerogative. I reiterate that I have much respect for Bp. Wright. In this case, his words were poorly chosen. I pray that he reconsiders them. Regardless, I wish both the both of you only the greatest of God’s blessings, and I continue to pray and work for the salvaging of the Anglican Communion as a legitimate expression within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. But let us not forget: there is ONE Lord; ONE Catholic Faith; ONE Baptism; ONE Church. We confess such. To deny such is to be a heretic. May God have mercy on that person’s soul. Pax Christi.

I have some sympathy with what Bishop Wright is writing. I also see the problems that he sees in the GAFCON declaration. They have to be taken seriously; and I think that the declaration has to be strengthened, either at a latter meeting or by providing a robust explanation or commentary. Although, were I forced to make a choice, I would choose GAFCON over +Wright,

You must not forget, while criticizing +Wright and ++William’s statements, that the situation in England is nothing like as bad as the situation in the US. Yes, we have some Bishops who would be fully at home in the TEC house of Bishops, but they are not the majority. In the US, there are only a few dioceses where it is possible to practice orthodox Christianity. In the UK, there are only a few dioceses where it is not (although that is bad enough); at least on account of the Church authorities. That, of course, might change this week for the classical Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics with general synod’s discussions concerning women Bishops, but until Monday I think that it is still true; and in the eyes of Bishop Wright it will remain the case for the foreseeable future. Although it will be interesting to see what happens at tonight’s meeting.

++Rowan Williams is no Dr Schori. He is far more orthodox, and rigorous in his theological thinking (though, alas, not perhaps in his common sense) than her and those like her (although he falls far short of, say, Athanasius). Part of the problem might be that he simply does not realise how far TEC has gone astray, hence his statement that almost all Anglicans in every province would agree with the GAFCON declarations (which is in sharp contrast to statements I’ve read from Dr Schori, and the Modern Churchpeoples Union, etc. which say that Anglicanism has always been a big tent, by trying to narrow it down these people are being intolerant and unanglican etc.).

In other words, it is wrong to judge the English situation through North American Eyes. Of course, it is equally wrong for Wright and Williams to judge the North American situation through English eyes.

Thank you, Boring Bloke.  Exactly.  Williams and Wright see a process that may take years.  I’m an American; we don’t have years to spare.  Our church is either dying or already dead, depending on which point of view one takes.  We don’t have time to wait.

And may God prevent the English Synod from pushing believers out there as well.

Let’s not throw those like +Wright are not immediately on board with every aspect of GAFCON under the bus.  I think it is OK to be disappointed in his response.  I gather neither Wright nor Williams sees this picture from the ground in TEC.  They have not had families simply cease to believe in God following the teachings of bishops such as Spong who maintains an active Internet presence to this day.  They are not posed to leave their denomination and probably lose their property.  They have not been called like so many priests in TEC by their bishops to attend mandatory Eucharists where heretical, non-canonical theology is given voice and reality ... or face charges.Years ago, when I was an Episcopalian, we often welcomed people into our congregations who had been abused or felt abused by religious upbringings in other Christian traditions.  We even felt a certain calling to do that.  Today, within Eastern Orthodoxy, I see the same phenomenon ... except our pews are beginning to fill with former Episcopal priests ... both male and female.  What does it mean when a (if not the) major focus of a national church is to prevent people from leaving?  I don’t know if Williams or Wright have children but I would remind them of the pace at which life passes.  The Anglican Communion has dithered while the Episcopal Church has been unmanned.  Today, the Presiding Mother of TEC speaks of teachings basic to all Protestantism and those who uphold them as (nocturnal) emissions.  Sure, people have floundered and guessed at flatulence ... that is a charitable reading.  If I were to not make a charitable reading, it might occur to me that the dark African night of adolescent males having emissions mocked by Schori might just be racist and sexist to a rather spectacular degree.  Are we responsible for connotations of our language?  Schori purports to be well-educated.  If I were to suggest that Schori, in seemingly avoiding the sacrifice of Christ and the Cross, has made a non-issue of blood, would such wording be responsible?  Would the Kaeton-esque ranks of militant feminists eager to gender neuter language and those who use it hear anything to get their knickers in a twist about there?

FWIW, I grieve with woman converts as well as men who have given up Orders when coming to safe harbor ... even while I rejoice with them.  The only bright spot in such loss is a growing appreciation for and renewal of the order of baptized laity.  Of course, I don’t point that out.  Sometimes, words are simply not helpful at all.

Dear Tom +Wright,
You are a wonderful theologian and defender of the faith and your concerns are valid ones.  However, there can be no question that your concerns would be addressed in a constructive way if they were taken to the GAFCON leadership as one who is part of GAFCON and who is working with GAFCON.  I do not know if you were invited to GAFCON or not, but it seems from your text that perhaps you were not.  If so, then I do not think this is a reflection of how the GAFCON leadership regards your orthodoxy, but rather that they rightly perceived that you have chosen to walk a different path and two do not walk together unless they have agreed to do so.  As Paul and Barnabas had to separate, so it is with us as well.  Minor disagreements can lead each to journey a separate path.  The Windsor Covenant process and the Jersalem Declaration are divergent paths.

You said, “this may lead us to do things in new ways, sometimes setting us free from tired structures and sometimes creating new structures for new gospel purposes. That is precisely what Windsor is proposing, and what Lambeth will be pursuing.”  This is certainly the crux of our disagreement.  I am sorry Dr +Wright, but new structures is what GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration are about.  I am sorry to inform you, but Windsor is dead.  As the principle author of it I am sure this brings you great pain.  Windsor was a wonderful document and I applaud you for it.  However, through no fault of your own it has been undermined beginning at DES and following by the unilateral actions of +Canterbury.  If the discipline called out for in Windsor and Dromantine were implemented, then I would agree with you, perhaps even on every single point of your letter.  But that is not the landscape that we are presently in.  This is 5 years later.  Windsor, Lambeth and the Covenant have all been undermined and because of this, the very See of Canterbury is now a disgrace.  As much as this hurts, we cannot deny this.

Therefore, I beg of you to stop toying with the old wineskins.  They are utterly useless now.  Dear +Wright, I have immense respect for you, and I am saddened that your talents seem to me to be nothing more than throwing pearls to the swine.  As much as you want to work with these existing structures, only the new wineskins will be of any use to our Communion.

Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?  +Wright, I hope that you will soon realize that those with whom you are currently walking do not share a common mind with you and those dear brothers that you reject in this statement are those who are the very ones you do share a common mind with, therefore, I pray that you will realize this and start walking with those that you are in agreement with.  You are in my prayers.  May we walk together.
In Christ,
Spencer

Boring Bloke (10) is quite right. The problem with Bp Tom Wright’s call to get stuck in, make your voice heard in the corridors of power, don’t give up, we’re all decent chaps together - is that it presupposes the English situation.

Even here in Wales things are different. Evangelicals and traditional Anglo-catholics are generally neither liked not trusted.  And it will be a very cold day in hell before a Bishop such as Michael Nazir-Ali or Graham Dow or Graham Cray (or even Tom Wright) would be elected to the Welsh bench of bishops.

The Anglican world is not all as benign and sunny as it looks from the Bishop’s palace in Durham!

Remember, there are three conversations going on in worldwide Anglicanism, and it is important to recognize which conversation someone is having….

There are those who think the hospitality all Christians should have toward homosexuals has become a situation so dire, that it is a social justice issue, and there are aspects of that conversation (far short of “go ahead and self-actualize the natural fallen state in which you find yourself) that I agree with.

There are those in the Communion who see the events leading up to and following Gene Robinson’s consecration through the eyes of ecclesiology, i.e. the Windsor Report, +Wright, +++Williams, +++Carey, etc.  There are fewer of these Bishops in TEC, but they are the “Windsor” bishops who are not ACN.  The Church of England is an establishment church, and as such, still has the political magisterium of the monarchy as the head of the church.  This will cause Wright, Williams, and Carey to think a certain way about how the church should organize itself… and incidently, they each have forgotten more than most of us about the history of ecclesiology, and how theological development should take place in the church according to a “catholic” ecclessiology, with proper deference and humility to the Scriptures, to traditional biblical interpretation, and to the collective reason of the worldwide, Spirit-filled (presumably), Church.

The third conversation has to do with biblical interpretation, and this is the category into which I myself, along with the GAFCON participants, fall… that the violations of Scripture, traditional and historic biblical interpretation, and the collective reason of the worldwide church have been so egregious as to warrant immediate and drastic consideration of those with whom we should be in communion.  And I think Wright would agree, along with Williams (privately), that KJS has wandered off of the Christian reservation of orthodoxy.

Their primary concern is the second of the aforementioned conversations, and this is why the rest of us considers their behavior to resemble fiddling while the Communion burns.  They want TEC to stop what they are doing, (ecclesiology), and for the jurisdictional boundary crossing to stop (ecclesiology), so that we can focus on the proper process for theological development between Provinces that are in spiritual unity, but not canonical unity (ecclesiology).

If those of us who are primarily concerned with the ridiculous misinterpretations of Scripture running rampant through Western Churches are unwilling to have the ecclesiological conversation that Williams and Wright are trying to have with all of us, then the communion is doomed to go the way of the constantly splitting, you-can’t-tell-us-what-to-do Continuing “Catholic” Churches whose “mission” is to constantly accuse themselves of right liturgy and right theology, (and everybody other than themselves as hopelessly wrong) all the while missing the irony of their use of the term “Catholic” while they are in communion with no-one.  The over-focus on the purity of their “Anglicanism” causes them to sacrifice mission on its altar.  In addition, those who are more Reformed may have been bitten with the Protestant American bug that we always have the right, in fact the God-given mandate, to declare independence from anyone who disagrees with us, even in non-essentials which we have elevated to essentials.

The problem of the convoluted nature of the three conversations passing like ships in the night (at best) or turning the whole thing into a storm of the size that only Jesus can calm (Lord come quickly), means that we have to be willing to stop shouting the points we are trying to make and start employing both humility and uncompromising boldness as a strategy, allowing the fruit of the Spirit to be manifested in us while WE HAVE THE OTHER PERSON’S CONVERSATION.

There is my regular offering of my two-bits at 6 month intervals on Stand Firm.

Sorry… first large paragraph should have read as follows:
“they each have forgotten more than most of us EVER HAVE KNOWN about…”

Aside to Monologistos, #12: I fear your conjecture about the PB’s use of ‘emission’ may be correct.  I’ve been thinking about it, too.  So much more upsetting even than thinking of it as pollution.  She said once in my presence, when I asked about the debasing of language in the current Episcopal church, how very careful she is about language.

English church leaders are quaint but it seems they are completely caught up in curiosities and maintaining the status quo.
The Current Bishop of Durham is a well know author and is equally recognizable as N T Wright and Tom Wright.  Yet when he makes a comment on GAFCON he decides to use the archaic form of “Thomas Dunelm”.  As a lover of history I have a personal affection for such terminology but it does highlight the fact that this member of the English House of Lords lacks an understanding of the worldwide Anglican Communion and the fact that we are now in a post colonial era.
God bless the Global South primates and the other leaders of the growing and lively parts of Christendom.

Libbie+
Thanks for your contributing to our further understanding of Ms. Schori. I have always regarded her as having a rather third rate mind, aside from her other “attributes.” Sophomoric word games fit right in. Emissions. Thanks Kate.
It is entirely possible to be mentally slow while at the same time being rattlesnake mean. See it every day in the HOB.

As a GAFCON participant, I share some of +Wright’s and ++William’s concerns regarding the ecclesiology (or lack thereof) in the statement.  I know at least one on the draft committee shared some of their concerns.  But the failure of ++Williams to enact proper discipline (discipline envisioned both by Windsor and the Dar es Salaam Communique) is what has brought us to this situation.  In other words, it is not just a failure of biblcal interpretation (conversation 3 in Christopheros terms), but of ecclesiology (conversation 2). 

The reason GAFCON happened is precisely because of the ecclesiological question: will the present structures of Anglicanism ever provide meaningful discipline?  +Wright and ++Rowans can fret all they want about GAFCON’s chosen response.  But the real issue is whether anything resembling biblical discipline will be forthcoming.  +Wright seems to think there will be.  GAFCON has decided there will not be, unless they begin to act themselves to reveal the true nature of the situation. I wholeheartedly agree.

If a covenant with teeth is produced and discipline becomes a real possibility, I do not doubt for a moment that GAFCON will fade from view.  It is a provisional response to a drastic situation. 

In line with Christospheros, I agree that it is important that GAFCON present the issue not just as a matter of Biblical authority, but of ecclesiastic renewal.  Without meaningful mechanisms for discipline, there is no future for the AC because it will have lost its apostolicity.  Rightly, GAFCON wants nothing to do with a church that lacks discipline./apostolicity.  Hence, we have taken this action.  It remains to be seen how the Anglican Communion will respond.  If it fails to begin to provide meaningful discipline, the Communion will fracture in a final and decisive way in the future.  If, however, it recognizes itself in the mirror held up by GAFCON, and begins to develop mechanisms for discipline that are meaningful, we may yet see a renewed and reformed Anglicanism of which +Wright, ++Williams, and all of us can be proud. 

In other words, the question right now is not “what do you think?” but, “what are you going to do about it?”

Rob Paris, #20, thank you for this—very helpful!

I’m sorry—I mean #21!