Graham, I do believe I had begun to address your complaint by referring to the fact that Paul used this language. I also raised the issue as to whether we took seriously enough the damage such bishops (a small minority, granted)  are doing.

It seems to me that we must be very real about the fact that there are men and women invited to Lambeth who do not hold to the gospel, indeed who teach against it. Scripture seems to be clear on the disaster this is in both the language that it uses and the action it calls us to.

As for language, I wonder how temperate it also is to describe the organisers of GAFCON as "super-Apostles"? Such a title was used by Paul of those who were not Christians. Is that language also not approriate or do we think that the organisers of GAFCON are to be regarded in the same way as those who deny the gospel in TEC?

As for a non-Canterbury centred Communion - when I was ordained earlier this year I swore to uphold the doctrine of the church, a doctrine based on the Scriptures as set out, not least in the 39 Articles and the Prayer Book. When I examine those formularies I don't see any mention of Canterbury.

Now, of course, Canterbury is a link that Anglicans all over the world cherish - but it's not the defining core of Anglicanism by a long shot. At the end of the day if Canterbury chooses not to uphold and defend the biblical Gospel then it is Canterbury itself, one might very well argue, that is setting up an alternative Anglicanism. When the Anglican Reformers of the 16th Century faced their difficult choices they asserted that they had not moved from the biblical gospel but were holding fast to it. I'm sure they were also asked similar questions about their links with Rome.

The desire of GAFCON, then, (as I understand it) is to defend and uphold the gospel held out to us in those formularies. It is a mark of

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

[apologies, this very last part dropped off my reply]

The desire of GAFCON, then, (as I understand it) is to defend and uphold the gospel held out to us in those formularies. It is a mark of the seriousness of the situation we are in that some would be prepared to countenance a break of any sort with Canterbury. Unless, of course, they are really just "super-Apostles", preaching a different Gospel to that which Paul preached.

David, a few comments in response:

• you know very well indeed how the meaning of the word 'dog' in the present context of sexuality has a different meaning from the word 'dog' as used by Paul in Philippians. 
• again, to refer to certain bishops in the Anglican Communion by such an inflammatory word is appalling.
• as to 'super apostles', I assume you are referring to Tom Wright's Fulcrum Conference address, 'Conflict and Covenant in the Bible'. Neither he, nor Paul, imply that 'super apostles' are not Christians. The whole point Paul is making is that they were Christian leaders but were mistaken.
• Tom Wright is not making an equivalence between the GAFCON organisers and 'those who deny the gospel in TEC'. As you know, he had some strong words to say in that direction too
• You only have to compare the phrase 'super apostle' to 'dog' to see the difference in tone and nuance and it is that to which I object strongly.
• It is interesting that in your reply you suggest that some GAFCON organisers are indeed planning a 'non-Canterbury centred Communion' and that you favour that yourself.
• Most of the Book of Common Prayer was written by the then Archbishop of Canterbury...

Graham,

It begins to feel to me that you are seeking the worst meaning of my words. I am well aware, since you have brought it up, that the word "dog" means a certain thing in certain contexts. I was however, as you are well aware, referring to the far wider issue of teaching a false gospel. Matters of sexual behaviour are entirely secondary to and only the outworking of these far bigger issues. I am not sure, then, why it is that you want to paint my words in another way.

As for the super-Apostles of 2Cor, Paul has this to say of them:

2 Corinthians 11:4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus different from the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough! 5 For I consider myself not at all inferior to those "super-apostles."

The super-Apostles, then, preach a different Jesus and those that receive them receive a different spirit. They are not simply "mistaken" but far worse - they promote another Jesus and so those that listen to and receive their message receive another Spirit. The consequences of such reception, obviously, are literally hellish. The term "super-Apostle" may initially sound more pleasant that "dog"or "wolf" but its implication in its Biblical context is much the same. It serves none of us well when you seek to paint one term as offensive but the other not. Readers may wish to consider how these "super-Apostles" are any better or more noble in Paul's eyes than the "dogs" of Phil. 3.

As for GAFCON itself. I most certainly did not suggest that they were deliberately pursuing a non-Canterbury Communion so much as Canterbury's actions (or lack of them) are what is catalysing division. I was very careful in my language to note that the 16th Century Reformers faced much the same accusations that you now throw at the GAFCON organisers. History shows that they were far less interested in pursuing division than they were in remaining consistent with the historic gospel. It is uncharitable to paint the organisers of GAFCON as divisive when they are merely wanting to be faithful to the Biblical call to not associate with false teachers. What is so wrong about seeking to be faithful to such a Biblical instruction that it illicits such opposition? Where is the charity? I am quite happy for people to decide, in good conscience, that they should attend Lambeth. It demonstrates an optimism that I do not share but I recognise that there are some for whom it is still something to be pursued even though they are, to my mind, only serving to endorse the status of those who the Communion should be censuring.

Why can that charity not be extended by your good self to GAFCON? Why are they to be condemned for having a conscience when those orthodox who attend Lambeth and give a place at the table to false teachers are to be praised? I'm beginning to get confused about who is open here and who is not.

David, I am not 'seeking the worst meaning of your words' but am pointing out to you how people on the web may read your words.

Since you admit that you do indeed understand the current contextual meaning of the word 'dog', which you used about some Anglican bishops, it is even more surprising that you do not consider it a mistake to use it.

In your article you state:

But if [Kings] wants to share his meal with wolves, our obedience to what Paul wrote to the Philippians will not allow us to come.

This clearly implies that you believe that those who will attend the Lambeth Conference, (which you know includes Greg Venables, Jack Iker and Bob Duncan) are 'sharing meals with wolves' and therefore being disobedient 'to what Paul wrote to the Philippians'.

In your latest comment on this Fulcrum forum you state:

 I am quite happy for people to decide, in good conscience, that they should attend Lambeth.

Those two statements do not match up. Which one do you still stand by?

You also state in your latest comment:

It is uncharitable to paint the organisers of GAFCON as divisive when they are merely wanting to be faithful to the Biblical call to not associate with false teachers.

It may be worth reading again the statement of the Secretary of GAFCON, cited in my 'Substance and Shadow' article:

In other words, since the Archbishop of Canterbury has not provided for the safe oversight of the orthodox in the United States, he has forfeited his role as the one who gathers the Communion.

As a lay "dog", who goes only for walkies around the block, the simple answer as to whether certain Anglican Churches will "comply" is no. Those who will say no to any expected shrinkage of Anglican diversity will include, but not exclusively, TEC, Canada, Brazil, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, most of Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong... There will also be large proportions in other places that will not accept some shrinkage beyond what formularies exist now.

The issue for Canterbury then, if anything is done at all, is whether it jumps with those that include the GAFCON crowd, making a group of Anglican Churches have bonds of affection with each other, or whether it accepts the no that comes from many Churches. If then Canterbury is linked by others with the noes, there will then be a non-Canterbury communion of the theological right..

This will not be decided at Lambeth, will it? It will be decided when there is a final draft of the Covenant and synod after synod, bishops after bishops meeting, say no, or when the self-proclaimed orthodox declare the final draft useless for purpose.

However, I'm sure impatience will get the better of the GAFCON crowd.

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

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the use of the term "dog". ISTM that when Paul wrote to the Philippians there would have been some there who said to him "hang on a minute, Paul. Don't you know that in another context that word means "filthy rotten non-Jew"? Surely you can't expect to win them over with that terminology?"

Nevertheless he used the term. Sometimes we need to have absolute clarity about the seriousness of a situation.

As to contradicting myself, I think some are being too reductionistic with what I'm saying. For clarity:

1. I think going to Lambeth is a big mistake since it endorses the false teachers who are there. It also seems to fly in the face of the Biblical injunction to not associate with such people. I say this with great sadness since I think the Lambeth Conference is extemely important but that should be an indication of how deep a crisis I (and others) think we are in.
2. I recognise that some will go, despite this. I understand their motivations but I think they are hopelessly optimistic given the unwillingness of TEC and Canterbury to accede to and enforce many requests that have already been made.
3. I fail to see how some parties are now criticising the GAFCON process when it appears to be an approach that is faithful to Scripture - it takes seriously both the call to fellowship and the need to delineate the false teachers. It may not be the only faithful approach but it is certainly one. Perhaps we might consider whether it has been the accomodation of those false teachers that has, in actuality, been a catalyst for further disintegration. There is, also, a slight discontinuity in praising one description of false teachers as appropriate, even though it is applied to those who uphold the orthodox faith, while denouncing another even though it is applied to those who are demonstrably opposing the gospel.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify these matters. I'm not sure if it will persuade your readers but at least I trust it will lead to a greater estimation of the integrity and goodwill of those associated with GAFCON, just as the more conservative amongst us recognise the integrity and goodwill of those who are still convinced that going to Lambeth is a good thing.

Thanks, David, for your comments and for this discussion.

I appreciate:

• your word 'seems' in the phrase, 'seems to fly in the face of the Biblical injunction'
• your word  'appears' in the sentence, 'the GAFCON process when it appears to be an approach that is faithful to Scripture'

GAFCON is a significant conference. The discussion there will be crucial over whether Evangelicals should try to:

• split off from a Canterbury-centred Communion 
• continue to keep up the pressure to reshape the Anglican Communion on the central issues of biblical authority, holiness in sexuality and ecclesiology

I pray and pray and pray for the latter.

Thank you, Graham Kings, for your direct question regarding a non Canterbury centred AC.

I personally would deem it a very sad and unfortunate move if this were to happen.  And while I am given to understand that there are some going to GAFCON who consider this a serious possibility, I am far from convinced that many either favour it or will therefore support it - at this stage.  But I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet!

There is also the question of any “centre” at all.  I do not see why it has to be, say, Lagos versus Canterbury.  For if some decide to sever ties with Canterbury, there does not need to be another centre instead.  At this point, we have moved well beyond the Reformation’s orbital entrapment to Rome’s ‘sun’ (with apologies to ARCIC).  On this score, I agree with our “pluralist”, that a series of autocephalous groups are a possible form of reconfiguration.  Though whether such reshaping (I will leave these terms as synonymous for the moment) can be effected without Canterbury and remain “Anglican” also remains to be seen.  Historically speaking, the C o E, and thereafter the AC, has surely been centred around Canterbury.  No-one disputes that!  What is seriously under dispute however is the form of unity bestowed by communion with Canterbury.

For already we have the anomalous situation where TEC claims to be in communion with Canterbury as does the Southern Cone - yet they themselves are at serious loggerheads!  And so far I can see nothing in the Covenant Draft that addresses this kind of triangulation (other than perhaps the lesser, associate status option).  Yet, in the end, Canterbury must itself decide not only on its historic ties and therefore its role as an Instrument of organizational Unity, but also how it sits regarding its adherence to orthodoxy as a function of sheer truth. [No; I am not for one moment setting off that hare - Rowan Williams’ own particular status confessionis ... nor his deemed competence or incompetence.  Though in the fulness of time, some form of collegial as well as conciliar dimension to our reshaped "patterns of ministry" needs to be more rigorously addressed by the Drafters.]

Lastly (avoiding altogether the vocab stuff), I am firmly of the opinion that any ecclesiology worth its salt (pun intended) is ethical, in and of itself.  The New Creation in Christ Jesus inevitably stands over against certain forms and codes of life as it adheres singularly to others.  Our (western) problem is that ethics has become its own separate matter methodologically (and I am sure you know the history ...).  Another, western problem is that “diversity”, so beloved of a culture driven by pluralism, seems - but only seems - to be a good and beautiful Christian thing to many folk.  I have argued at some length elsewhere (not in my nom de plume) that this is in fact not the case, since there is, as I have already said earlier on this thread, literally a world of difference between such a view of ‘diversity’ on the one hand and created differentiation on the other  The result is that the very premises of the means of our ethical adjudication among various members of the AC are skewed before we’ve even started!  Many are simply captured by their secular culture of pluralism and are incapable, it seems, of discerning the difference between that and a robust Christian theology of creation, as this applies to cultural formation among various peoples.  To be sure; our “pluralist” will/might not like this line of conversation; but having visited his web site fairly often, he is delightfully symptomatic!  Consequently, whatever ecclesiology we attempt to establish needs to address directly the very form of ethics that reflects the character and nature of the triune God - not as some addendum but as the necessary outflow of New Life in Christ Jesus and as this is set over against prevailing currents.  Again, I do not see much of these kinds of consideration in the current Drafters’ material.  Perhaps their assiduous refusal to look back and to the causes of our current plight, looking only forwards and to supposed ways of future ‘communion’, makes this one-eyed and so half-baked stance inevitable.  Sorry folks; there’s a **&^!!^$~~%#* elephant in the room!  And for all GAFCON’s possible ills, at least it recognises that!  Just so, my own question: if not GAFCON, what?  To which the Covenant is frankly only a partial answer ... albeit a necessary partial answer, given the last few years’ actual course of events.

Once more, blessed preparations!

Thanks, Art, for your thoughtful comments. Yes, ethics and ecclesiology have to go together as you say:

I am firmly of the opinion that any ecclesiology worth its salt (pun intended) is ethical, in and of itself.

This reflects the opening sentence of Michael Poon's Oxford DPhil thesis on John Chrysostom, 'Christian ethics are ecclesial' which I cited in 'Singapore: Intellectual Centre of a Movement'.

To your question, 'If not GAFCON, what?', yes, the Covenant is part of the answer. Another part will be the crucial reshaping of the official structures of the Anglican Communion, which will be discussed at the Lambeth Conference.

In a very significant interview with Paul Richardson, published in the Church of England Newspaper 9 May 2008, Rowan Williams states:

What the debate has revealed is how ill-equipped to deal with such matters are the structures which have evolved in the Communion. There have to be clearing houses where people representative of different views in the Provinces can decide what is a fundamental matter. At the Lambeth Conference we need to think about how we put that clearing mechanism in place and get something that commands trust.

All bishops who would like to be involved in such questions should be encouraged to attend the Lambeth Conference. It is not too late...