The future of Anglican evangelicalism is in your hands. You seek advice concerning a strategic conference coming up in the next few months. One adviser says this:

"To those bishops who go to Lambeth knowing that unrepentant homosexual activity is wrong - your profession of evangelical credentials will always be tarnished. You cannot expect God's people to trust you as you pick and choose which parts of the Bible apply to others and apply to you." (Philip Jensen in a paper noted in previous posts)

Another says this:

"encourages the bishops of our Province to participate in the Lambeth Conference 2008 yet also fully understands and respects the decision of some who for their own principled reasons may choose not to attend the Lambeth Conference 2008;" (The SYNOD of the Province of the Anglican Church in South East Asia, meeting in Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, 27 - 28 February 2008, also noted previously).

Which advice will you follow? Tough choice to make!

Greetings!

I am all for using biblical language but I think the Bible writers themselves used language that attempted to be effective communication. Quite what will be achieved by describing Anglican bishops as 'dogs', no matter what we think of their theology, is beyond me. I think its the twenty-first century, not the first!

But I am encouraged to see in David Ould's post that Euodia and Syntyche are welcome at the GAFCON table and look forward to a hearty engagement with the question of the ordination of women at that conference!

Peter Carrell

David,

I fail to see how 'dogs' and 'super-apostles' can be equated as similar terms of deprecation even though they may both have been used intemperately.

My point about 'dogs' is that it is not a term which will wake up false teaching bishops to the error of their ways. It will only confirm their estimation of conservative Anglicans which I suggest is not one of praise and thanksgiving, and shut down any receptivity they have to the message we proclaim.

You talk about the Bible's call to action. But the fact that Paul used a term in the first century is not a call to us to use the same term in a different context. Our need at this time is to find language which might win people to Christ and transform the hearts and minds of erroneous Christians to orthodoxy. There are many possibilities for strong and robust language if this is required, as well as for the language of diplomacy if that is apt. But 'dogs' is not one of those possibilities because of its counter-productivity to the goal of transformation of our Communion.

Peter Carrell

It has been an unfortunate part of current and recent discussions since the announcement of GAFCON that judgements have been made about the event before it has actually happened. Nevertheless, as Graham Kings points out, some statements have been made by the GAFCON organisers themselves which raise the question of what GAFCON may lead to.

I fail to see how two Anglican global organisations - should that be the outcome - contribute to our global mission. At that point we become yet another contributor to confusion in the minds of non-churchgoers (and probably in the minds of many 'ordinary' Anglicans too)!

I can see how GAFCON as an event to rally and enthuse many Anglicans committed to a sound orthodox, biblical evangelical and anglo-catholic theology could be a significant and strategic event in mapping out how those Anglicans committed to such theology continue to work within the Anglican Communion to convince and persuade more Anglicans to share that commitment.

I can also see how the attendance of all bishops at GAFCON at Lambeth as well could lead to the Lambeth Conference being unable to escape facing the fact that the Anglican Communion is currently failing to be truly inclusive of its diversity. I fear that Duncan, Iker, Venables and co might fall short of the numbers to make Lambeth a Communion transforming event. If only Nigerian and Sydney bishops were there to add weight to the scrum!

Peter Carrell

One reason for having a Canterbury-led Communion is provided by David Ould. In posts on this thread he has alleged some Anglican bishops are 'false teachers'. But on what basis is this judgement made? Juridically it is only fair and just that such judgement is made by a properly appointed doctrinal tribunal. Such tribunals exist (I presume) in each member Anglican Church but one does not clearly yet exist in the Communion (though the Covenant is moving us in that direction). Cutting a long explanation short, the calling into being of such a tribunal, and the authority structure around its being convened and its consequent deliberations, determinations and enforcements normally requires someone to be the primary leader of the structure. The case is strong, but not absolute for this person being the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Just before someone makes a response such as 'but some matters are so obvious in respect of false teaching it does not require a council to determine them' David Ould has again provided an example of how some things are not at all obvious to all. He (with slight revision on this thread in a gracious direction) has made some statements about the disobedience of bishops (to the command of Scripture not to associate with false teachers) who are going to Lambeth: presumably this is obvious to him, but not obvious to the bishops themselves (and to Graham Kings and myself and many other Anglicans).

My understanding of the pickle we are in is that some Anglicans think other Anglicans are false teachers but those Anglicans fiercely deny they are anything of the sort. That kind of disagreement could be a reason to divide but it could also be a reason to keep talking, and (in my mind) it is certainly a reason to investigate further the possibility of a Communion-mechanism for determining what is false teaching and what is not!

Peter Carrell

Obadiahslope, I think that SSBs reflect false teaching and bishops promoting them are false teachers. I also agree with you that the current crisis may lead to an embedding of such false teaching (if it has not already done so) due to the time frame envisaged for the establishment of a Communion mechanism for dealing with false teaching. That is a weak point in my position.

Nevertheless 'false teaching' is a tricky judgement to secure. I understand that where a theology has been thought through supporting SSBs (i.e. a theology of wider and deeper reasoning than 'love demands this' or 'justice requires this') then it engages with Scripture and tradition, calls on eminent theologians, and argues that God moves with the times post-Scripture just as, in certain ways, God moved with the times in Scripture (think of the difference between the mode of conquest of Canaan, and the conquest of Rome). I still think this is false teaching, but its proponents are liable to ask for my grounds for declaring it to be so, and to respond point-by-point. Who then makes the judgement and by what authority will they do so?

Charges of 'false teaching' can cut both ways within the Communion which is why it is important to establish a body of greater authority than an individual or series of individuals. You and I might be on common ground in our approach to SSBs. But what about other issues? I know of people who think of N. T. Wright as a false teacher (New Perspective is dangerous and all that); and I can think of one creationist who seems to think of me as a false teacher because I accept that evolution has taken place. Who is the arbiter? [!!]

Then to GAFCON. I see a difference between GAFCON leading to a bloc within the Communion which seeks to exert unified and constructive pressure towards sorting out false teaching, and GAFCON leading to an outright division of the Communion. I interpret your remarks as envisaging the first as a definite possibility. I support that possibility. Its just that in the run up to GAFCON there have been some remarks which hint at the second possibility. I am realistic in recognising that in some sense that may be the only plausible outcome. But I hope it is not so.

Peter Carrell

 L Roberts raises an important question about 'live and let live' as a mode of being theologically diverse within Anglicanism. The difficulty I have is that mode provides no criterion for what might not be Anglican. Perhaps nothing is unAnglican. But if that was so, would there not need to be a forum at which that was agreed? If there are some things which are unAnglican, what is our means for applying a judgement on someone who seeks to bring unAnglican things into the Anglican fold?

There is another aspect of 'live and let live' worth noting. It operates in the church in its most universal sense and is called 'denominations'. I am unclear from L Roberts post whether 'live and let live' is a call to divide the Anglican church into two formally separate denominations or a call to remain in the one church without a mechanism for determining whether anything might be impossible for Anglicans to live with! I am not keen on either alternative.

Peter Carrell

L Roberts and Tony, I think I personally share a view of the breadth of Anglicanism that is closer to your own views than I may have given the impression (mea culpa). But this particular part of this thread on the Fulcrum Forum started with David Ould's "intra-evangelical" questioning of evangelicals going to Lambeth as an arguably disobedient action in connection with biblical teaching about 'false teaching'. It is that kind of critique of what Anglicanism currently incorporates into its breadth which propels the momentum towards GAFCON and which may be propelling a momentum towards some decisive split of the Communion. While I have disagreed with David Ould I take seriously the possibility that Anglican diversity is now impossible to hold together. A plane can have very long wings but if the wings are too long they will bend at their tips to the ground and prevent flight!

I did say 'Perhaps there is nothing that is unAnglican'! I take that possibility seriously, but in the end it is not true. There are, for instance, theological views espoused by some which are at odds with the minimalist criteria for orthodoxy. We could think, here, for instance, of the Episcopalian priest who tried to espouse the cause of Islam while holding a bishop's licence. Rightly that priest has been asked to take some time out to think again! Or, we could think of the recurring possibility finally taking place that the Diocese of Sydney might institute lay presidency with full legal and episcopal backing. That possibility is widely viewed as unAnglican in the sense that it constitutes a fundamental contradiction of Anglican orders. A third example could be Nigeria's recent recognition that it needed to make a decisive statement against polygamy.

If we agree that there are in fact some things which are unAnglican then the question arises as to how these things are decided and who might decide them. L Roberts makes the case for ad hoc procedures when saying:

"Similarly there has never been 'a forum' to decide and pronounce on these matters. And we have got on without one for a few hundred years --to date ! What has worked quite well is living and letting live, and deaneries and parishes and dioceses and provinces have made quite a good fist of it."

My understanding of Anglicanism is that few disagree with this kind of statement as a description of how we have lived till now. And fairly successfully too. But today's situation has raised the question whether we can continue to live without a 'forum' (i.e. magisterium). Roman Catholic leaders such as Kasper are effectively saying, 'See, we knew since the Reformation that you would need one.' Anglicans such as L Roberts are saying, 'No forum needed.' My modest assertion is that the Anglican Communion should consider the possibility that a forum is needed. I am Anglican enough to be open-minded about what answer we arrive at!

Peter Carrell

Boundaries are difficult things and they have potential to exclude. They also have potential to clarify matters. The 'are you not in danger of excluding people' school of Pluralist thinking is attractive. But I wonder if it had held sway whether much of Christianity would have got going. 'Why only Twelve, Jesus, and all men? Let's talk about a group without such exclusions before we set off.' Or, 'Let's not write down the stories of Jesus, something is bound to get left out.'

I fail to see why the Communion establishing a clearer, even tighter sense of Anglican doctrine need exclude study groups, preachers, and theologians etc from exploring diverses theological possibilities - some of which when brought to the Communion's version of a magisterium might lead to development of 'official' Anglican doctrine (and some of which, after due and fair process, might be rejected).

What I do recognise, sadly, is that there are groups (to the left and the right) within the Communion which, if controlling such an Anglican magisterium, would take the Communion in a sectarian direction. I am confident that ++Rowan has the strength, despite his critics re perceived weaknesses, to lead the Communion away from sectarian temptations.

Peter Carrell

Pluralist, is it possible that 'bureaucracy' takes priority over 'ethics' (as per your previous post) precisely because the church refuses to set boundaries in its theology? As I understand one current situation facing the CofE, the 'ethics' of ordination of women to the episcopacy involves a debate between those who say this is ok and those who say it is not. In a boundary-less church both views are welcome and no one is excluded.

The 'bureaucracy' of ordination of women to the episcopacy involves a decision either to not ordain women to the episcopacy or to so ordain (without special arrangements for those who disagree) or to so ordain (with special arrangements for those who disagree). Each possible 'bureaucratic' decision is fraught. To not ordain excludes women from the episcopacy. To ordain without special arrangements excludes those who do not agree with women bishops. To ordain with special arrangements is perceived to present predictable and unpredictable difficulties - potentially less actual exclusion of anyone, it is true, but the difficulties hamstring women bishops from feeling they are wholly included and accepted by the church to which they are ordained.

That is, a boundary-less church concerning views for and against women bishops is nevertheless an exclusionary church as its bureaucracy makes its decision one way or another.

It is at least arguable (IMHO) that the C of E imposing a boundary around the issue of women bishops, whether resolutely for or against the possibility of women bishops as 'the' doctrine of the church, exclusionary though either decision would be, offers the prospect of a consequential bureaucratic decision which follows from rather than dictates the ethics of the church!

Peter Carrell

Graham

In the news Rev Dr David Lord is identified as a New Zealand priest. It may therefore be of interest to know that the following media statement has been issued here in NZ. I support you in your call for a robust response but it appears that at least one of the priests involved is not currently licensed to a bishop.

Peter Carrell (Nelson, NZ)

June 15, 2008

News reports in the United Kingdom have described a London Anglican church blessing for two male Anglican clergy, one of whom is a New Zealander.

The New Zealand priest involved has felt it appropriate to lay down his clergy license, in the light of Anglican Communion processes and discussions in the area of same gender Blessings and ordination.

Both the bishops to whom the priests were licensed, one in New Zealand and the other in the United Kingdom, were not aware of the ceremony.

The Bishop of Waikato and the Waikato priest concerned have released this joint statement. They will make no further comment on this matter.

Ends

Lloyd Ashton

Media Officer to the Anglican Church

in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia

Phone: (09) 521-4439

Fax:      (09) 521-4490

Mob:    (021) 348-470

Email:   mediaofficer@ang.org.nz

Web:    www.anglicanchurch.co.nz

Pluralist and Tony

I am puzzled by the logic of comments such as "The issue is a divider and certainly throws Fulcrum into the Anglican Mainstream camp, if it cannot move on. " (Pluralist. But Tony makes a similar comment). Why should Fulcrum 'move on'. Fulcrum's claim concerns inhabiting the 'evangelical centre'. That implies that on many matters it/we share(s) common ground with evangelicals of all hues and on some matters it/we differ from other evangelicals. The response to the St Bart's service does not 'throw Fulcrum into the Anglican Mainstream camp'. Rather it highlights a predictable area of common ground among evangelicals: we do not see the Scriptural basis for such a service. Nor do we see the agreed Anglican theological basis for the service!

On a slightly different matter, Pluralist criticises Fern for dismissing 'Friends in Aotearoa'. Might I note from that fair land that evangelicals here are, at the least, bemused to find a New Zealand connection to this controversy ... and have our own set of questions about its possible challenges for our life here, since news reports suggest it is the intention of the two clergy to settle here!

Peter Carrell