Archbishop Williams responds to GAFCON

Updated with press reports: Time, AP, Reuters, American Prospect.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has responded to the final declaration of the Global Anglican Future Conference with the following statement:

The Final Statement from the GAFCON meeting in Jordan and Jerusalem contains much that is positive and encouraging about the priorities of those who met for prayer and pilgrimage in the last week. The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues. I agree that the Communion needs to be united in its commitments on these matters, and I have no doubt that the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON’s deliberations. Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion

However, GAFCON’s proposals for the way ahead are problematic in all sorts of ways, and I urge those who have outlined these to think very carefully about the risks entailed.

A ‘Primates’ Council’ which consists only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion will not pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion. And any claim to be free to operate across provincial boundaries is fraught with difficulties, both theological and practical – theological because of our historic commitments to mutual recognition of ministries in the Communion, practical because of the obvious strain of responsibly exercising episcopal or primatial authority across enormous geographical and cultural divides.

Two questions arise at once about what has been proposed. By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council? And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?

No-one should for a moment impute selfish or malicious motives to those who have offered pastoral oversight to congregations in other provinces; these actions, however we judge them, arise from pastoral and spiritual concern. But one question has repeatedly been raised which is now becoming very serious: how is a bishop or primate in another continent able to discriminate effectively between a genuine crisis of pastoral relationship and theological integrity, and a situation where there are underlying non-theological motivations at work? We have seen instances of intervention in dioceses whose leadership is unquestionably orthodox simply because of local difficulties of a personal and administrative nature. We have also seen instances of clergy disciplined for scandalous behaviour in one jurisdiction accepted in another, apparently without due process. Some other Christian churches have unhappy experience of this problem and it needs to be addressed honestly.

It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion. If they are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve. This challenge is one of the most significant focuses for the forthcoming Lambeth Conference. One of its major stated aims is to restore and deepen confidence in our Anglican identity. And this task will require all who care as deeply as the authors of the statement say they do about the future of Anglicanism to play their part.

The language of ‘colonialism’ has been freely used of existing patterns. No-one is likely to look back with complacency to the colonial legacy. But emerging from the legacy of colonialism must mean a new co-operation of equals, not a simple reversal of power. If those who speak for GAFCON are willing to share in a genuine renewal of all our patterns of reflection and decision-making in the Communion, they are welcome, especially in the shaping of an effective Covenant for our future together.

I believe that it is wrong to assume we are now so far apart that all those outside the GAFCON network are simply proclaiming another gospel. This is not the case; it is not the experience of millions of faithful and biblically focused Anglicans in every province. What is true is that, on all sides of our controversies, slogans, misrepresentations and caricatures abound. And they need to be challenged in the name of the respect and patience we owe to each other in Jesus Christ.

I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ‘wait for one another’. I would say the same to those in whose name this statement has been issued. An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents.

Courtesy of Anglican Communion News Service

Comments (2)

Not only is this direct in pointing to problems with the GAFCON Statement, but it is also relative clear.

That said, I fear it is too little and too late. "I believe that it is wrong to assume we are now so far apart that all those outside the GAFCON network are simply proclaiming another gospel." But, those who have signed onto the statement have not only asserted that, but have staked quite a bit on it.

"It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion." Perhaps so, especially if you're personally one of the "existing structures" being dismissed. However, it seems clear that those who have signed on, and especially those who have joined the "Council of Primates," have dismissed the two oldest of the "existing structures" - Canterbury and Lambeth - and are prepared to replace them, Jensen's hesitancy notwithstanding.

"The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues." But, it is precisely the "differences of emphasis and perspective" that have provided the excuses for GAFCON and its new network. Those who feel the need to depart have elevated some of them (literal vs. historical critical interpretation of Scripture, and continued leadership by the Spirit; a traditional vs. expanded moral stance; differences in qualifications for ordained ministry, and in the role of the episcopate) have been raised to first-order issues in the Jerusalem Declaration.

This is an effort at a hopeful but realistic statement. It will hold some conservative Anglicans in conservative Provinces who still want to hold to the Anglican-Communion-as-we-have-known-it. It will not hold those intent on departure, whether they've been as clear as Akinola or as hesitant as Jensen.

The gauntlet has been thrown down. Canterbury can try not to pick it up, but he can't pretend it isn't a challenge.

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/06/summer-of-schis.html

Bishop Chane tells The Times:

'The archbishop's thoughtful letter is helpful, and his defense of the Communion's structures is persuasive. I am particularly grateful to hear him say that "the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion." This slanderous bit of boilerplate has been repeated frequently by the opponents of the Episcopal Church, and it is heartening to know that the archbishop realizes that it [is] false.

'I am quite concerned however that Archbishop Williams seems not to understand that there are primates, bishops, and others in the Communion who are actively seeking to undermine his office. He says that we should not "input selfish or malicious motives to those who have offered pastoral oversight to congregations in other provinces." But there is no doubt that extending such oversight is an effort to foment discord, and punish those who argue on behalf of the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of our Communion. Peter Akinola is unwilling to articulate a simple condemnation of violence against homosexuals. What more does he have to do to persuade the archbishop that his views are dangerous, malicious and un-Christian?'

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space