His latest piece published on Fulcrum's website is no exception. In his opening paragraph, intended, apparently, to express a certain level of sympathy for his GAFCON “friends” soon gives way to biting sarcasm:
“There were many people, including many friends of mine, who found the whole GAFCON experience deeply moving – as of course they should, since worshipping[sp] and praying in Jerusalem is always likely to be a wonderful Christian experience, as I know from many such visits myself. I do not, though, suppose that when I have been on such visits everything I then think or write is automatically dictated by the Holy Spirit.”
Did anyone at GAFCON ever express anything of the sort? Of course not. Have any of the leaders present at GAFCON suggested that the Jerusalem Declaration is above or beyond criticism. Never. Criticism is and has always been expected.
What is unexpected is the level of irrational vitriol directed toward GAFCON from those, especially among the largely collaborationist “open evangelical” faction, who when faced with the advance of soul destroying heresy are able to gin up far more indignation toward those who defend orthodoxy than toward those who seek its overthrow.
Bishop Wright goes on to note that he is particularly disturbed over the implications of GAFCON within the Church of England:
“Having written my initial response, I then received reports, late on Tuesday July 1 and through parts of Wednesday July 2, of the meeting of GAFCON leaders with several hundred English clergy at All Souls, Langham Place on the July 1. Frankly, I was quite disturbed, as were various others who had actually been there. I checked websites to see as far as I could precisely what had been said, and discussed the meeting with some who were there during the day and some who were there during the evening including the question time. It is as a result of that that I became convinced that some more clearly negative comments were necessary as well. I stress that this is in no way to say ‘so America doesn’t need help’ or ‘so the African leaders are completely mistaken’. It is to say, rather, that the GAFCON proposals are not only not needed in England but are positively harmful and indeed offensive.”
I do not know why he takes offense. The Jerusalem Declaration was clear in expressing support for interventions only in those places where bishops with jurisdiction presume to depart from orthodox Christianity. Once a bishop, or any ordained leader, presumes to contradict or overturn apostolic teaching, he is anathema, his authority is null and void.
So long as bishops in the Church of England remain faithful to apostolic doctrine and so long as those bishops who do not come under discipline and those parishes under the authority of heretic bishops are given refuge and succor by the wider church, then there need be no fear of intervention.
But when a bishop turns against Christ and through his false teaching begins to lead souls toward damnation, which is the terrible consequence of heresy, one would expect orthodox bishops, like Bishop Wright, would themselves be concerned to provide aid or, if they lack the courage themselves, to at the very least cheer along those who are willing to do so--unless of course they are more concerned with keeping polity lines tidy than saving souls from hell.
And if that is the case, then while the said “orthodox” bishop might have his polity worked out with admirable precision, his priorities are contemptible. While wolves ravage his flock, this particular shepherd is most concerned to bar rescuing shepherds from the fold.
But again if England is as Bishop Wright seems to suggest a bastion of orthodoxy, then there is no need to bar the way.
'AS FAR AS ENGLAND IS CONCERNED, it is damaging, arrogant and irrelevant for GAFCON leaders to say, as they are now doing, ‘choose you this day whom you will serve’, with the implication that there are now only two parties in the church, the orthodox and the liberals, and that to refuse to sign up to GAFCON is to decide for the liberals. Things are just not like that. Certainly not here in England.”
Bishop Wright comes very close to bearing false witness here. He is certainly misrepresenting GAFCON. The Jerusalem Declaration and the GAFCON Statement recognize the obvious presence of heretics within the Anglican Communion. Neither document suggests that those who do not join GAFCON are heretics. Such a charge is no where to be found. Bishop Wright is either dishonest, which I doubt, or ignorant of the documents he presumes to critique, which is far more likely, if he thinks otherwise.
There is, as I have written, a clear challenge to the Cantaur-centric structure of the Communion in the GAFCON documents, but this challenge does not carry an anathema for those who decide against the Jerusalem Declaration.
37 Comments •
Comments:
Over time we will see whether bishops, priests and laity choose schism over heresy or heresy over schism. Bishop Wright is clearly leaning in one direction.
Bad theology can be contagious. Get inoculated!