We have just published my Fulcrum Newsletter for April 2008, 'Faith and Fellowship in Crisis.' The address was given at the Pre-Lambeth Conference of the Diocese of Lichfield at the University of Stafford last Saturday, 26 April.

Thank you Graham for the vivid descriptions of Aeschylus revisited, mamas and all!  Having myself spent some 30% of my life in Africa also, the pictures plus sounds are suitably electric.  And then placing these alongside Gillian Rose, some of whose work is also familiar, was bound to generate a certain frisson!  I trust this juxtaposition works as well for other readers whose cultural experiences are not that way inclined.

Yet I confess to having a difficulty thereafter.  Granting both Rose’s and Williams’ due emphasis upon learning and the role of error in the learning process, from most accounts many in TEC’s leadership are simply not prepared to acknowledge that there has been any error on their part.  Just so, your pointing out that while they do apologize for “the hurt caused”, there is steadfastly - my own take - no acknowledgement of the error of “the fact of the consecration”.  And while this denial persists - again my own take with both words - how can their be due ‘koinonia’?  How can there be genuine reconciliation and a genuine going forward until they own the fact that they have contributed greatly to the present “brokenness” (Rose)?

Thereafter again, to paraphrase + Schofield’s recent distinction, to “recognise the tear in the fabric of Communion is not to cause it”.  In which light, to what degree is GAFCON a due “recognition” and to what extent an overreaction and so an undue, rival, and so false response?  Your position has been laid out - more or less.  My question is simply this: what other forms of recognition (and it is appropriate to note this key word from Williams’ Advent Letter 2007) have been seriously proposed and/or enacted that reflect faithfully what has occurred?  To deny an invitation to Lambeth to New Hampshire is but one small response.  For in principle, according to catholic order as well as canonically, a host of further TEC bishops were necessarily complicit.  Should they still be invited?  And what if the apparently imminent “painful letter” of the ABC’s is shrugged off in a similar manner to most of TEC’s recent shrugs?  The acts and reactions of TEC over the last five years have established a certain trajectory in some/many people’s minds that warrants far stronger recognition than has been proposed - if not GAFCON.  And it is at this point that I suggest your analysis and assessment fails: if not GAFCON, what?

Lastly, I have friends who will be in Jerusalem just as I have friends who will be in Canterbury.  I suspect you and many others are together with me in this.  My apprehension - even granted a desire to “not fear”! - is that, any which way, come the end of August many/some of these friendships will have reached breaking point.  Unless Lambeth seriously recognises and seeks to address the sheer depth of our current, broken (and not merely impaired) ‘koinonia’.  And then of course, if it does - miracles might happen! - then I/we probably face a string of broken friendships with those who have chosen/feel called to remain in TEC.  Faith in the face of any such prospects may be “a sharing in the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings”.  Yet if there are courses of action still open that may avert such a form of ‘koinonia’, then it behoves us to seek them and take them.  Sadly, however, the last five years has witnessed something of a lack of imagination, it seems to me, which makes the sense of both my faith and my hope even more challenging.  Or is that just the necessary precursor to a ‘koinonia’ in Jesus’ sufferings before any due resurrection is possible - given the tragic muddle we are in the Middle of ...?

Peace and Joy this Ascension Day!

Venturing a comment upon my own basic questions to Graham Kings.

In the first place, there is now something of a ready answer offered by Philip Turner. See http://covenant-communion.com/?p=708  (or via the ACI site if you prefer). This essay is enormously rich and deserving of careful attention, not least as it continues and applies afresh major lines of thought which both Turner and Radner have been consistently - and I myself reckon rightly, for what that’s worth, even if idealistically - pursuing for a number of years.

Thereafter, however, I wish to highlight (among many possibilities) a delightful shift in meaning that two words carry: “until” versus “unless”.  Going to the end of section VI, the second last sentence: “Here it seems to me the covenant ought to call specifically for mutual subjection that entails not taking such an action until such time as the larger body has recognized it as one in keeping with faithful Christian belief and practice.”  

The contrast between these two words could not be greater, especially when placed in the context of the events of the last 10 years, that is, since the last meeting of the Lambeth Conference and its Resolutions.  For many in the Communion have simply assumed that it is actually ‘only a matter of time before others catch up’, so that the “until” word is correct, while equally another set of folk clearly hold to the fact that the “unless” has been already declared: e.g. the now (in)famous Resolution I.10, Primates’ Communiqué October 2003, etc.  And recent actions based on these two differing attitudes reflect probably more a typical human impatience by both camps than a denial of the actual connotations themselves.  Furthermore, behind both words and their usage in our current ‘dilemmas’ lie additional and crucial assumptions, it seems to me.

For many pluralists (using Turner’s taxonomy) assume also a progressive, developmental aspect to human history, while many confessionalists see the ambiguities of history continuing unabated irrespective of cultural shifts (to try to capture in simple terms a key difference).  And behind both of these stances is an even more basic premise: does Scripture actually offer the tool for cultural assessment; does it really provide the norma normans for reading and interpreting social scripts?  For many a pluralist has reached their position almost by default, with pluralism being a significant expression of Western Secular Society in which they happen to dwell [see now Charles Taylor’s brilliant analysis published, finally, last year, A Secular Age].  There is quite literally a world of difference between pluralism’s belief in ‘diversity’, and the created differentiation offered us via a Christian view of reality.  The one trades upon a form of social constructionism, while the latter is derived from the Christian theology of Creation.  And of course the latter also assumes the kind of high authoritative view of Holy Scripture that guides both Turner’s analysis and TWR throughout.  On the other hand, much of the time it really does seem that for many a pluralist their view and use of Scripture is “loosey/Lucy goosey”, to quote a famous Episcopalian.  And if that is really the case, then why grant the pluralist view the weight Turner does?!  To be sure, contextualization will remain a key missiological question, but the way one assesses such matters need not be prejudiced (a deliberate word!) by the current view that presupposes all cultural traits and codes of life to be merely plastic, to be moulded any which way we humans please.  “Created differences” may stand; the plethora of postmodern “others” need not at all!

Given therefore these very different starting positions and base assumptions, as they show themselves via the little words “until” versus “unless”, my questions to Graham Kings, and to some degree Philip Turner, remain on the table.  The Psalmist’s cry “How long, O Lord?!” is one that many of us who have a due ‘koinonia’ with the African Church and its mission know all too well.  Yet that cry seems all too prevalent also more recently in such places as Dallas, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh and/or San Joaquin, let alone Vancouver.  Wherein the answer to this cry via the proposed Anglican Covenant?  (I’d like to say more readily that it does reside there; but the faith and hope attached to that form of ‘koinonia’ are becoming increasingly dimmed as events unfold and responses to the Drafts emerge.)  Apart from, that is, Phil 3:3-16 in the light of 2:1-13 once more.  Yet there I am wishing to ground reality in Scripture again!  And the section ends 3:20-21, God’s final “answer”!

At bottom, I seek both a grounded realism, given the trajectory of events and responses over the past decade(s), as well as a robust search for what could be termed “global Anglican identity” in our 21st C.  I am not convinced from this Newsletter that Graham Kings - and now Philip Turner’s essay - has the options duly tabled ... yet.

Many thanks indeed, Art, for your two thoughtful comments and for pointing people to  Philip Turner's very fine essay.

As you know, I am still an advocate of 'passionate patience' and will ponder these comments. They will help in preparation for my address at Fulcrum in the North, on 1 June, which will be published here soon after that.

We have just published on Fulcrum 'Ending the Cycle of Vengeance'. This is a version of my address to the Diocese of Lichfield Pre-Lambeth Conference which I edited down for the Church of England Newspaper, 2 May 2008.

You are right, Pete Hobson, to point to the desire that ‘friendships’ might/would be stronger than the structural stuff that is proving just so very vexatious at present.  However, I myself have known what it is to live through a civil war with what I thought to be good friends on all sides (I refer to Rhodesia/Zimbabwe). Yet as this war gained momentum, it proved impossible to maintain all of these.  And the 1980s, post Independence, were, shall we say, ‘interesting times’.  (I refrain from commenting upon the present as it is truly off the map ...)  And while in South Africa something similar happened I know, their Truth and Reconciliation Commission could only possibly see the light of day after the end of Apartheid: there were necessarily real losers.  Nor has this been the panacea for all ills - even as it has been a truly miraculous work of common grace, and to be justly hailed as such.

Yet again, Graham Kings, your “passionate patience” is exactly the call.  It expresses a real form of ‘koinonia’ in Christ’s sufferings.  Just so, you rightly point us to Paul’s Letter to Philippi at the start of the Newsletter.  However, in this light (Paul was in prison), we can expect real casualties - another form of ‘koinonia’ - as this thing that was once the Anglican Communion reconfigures.  That is, even should we desire (that word again) an “end to the cycle of vengeance”, living “beyond judgment” (O’Donovan in The Ways of Judgment) may only be enacted once the reality and truth of the Cross and Resurrection are duly affirmed [in a similar way to the need for Apartheid first to cease before the Commission may exist].  And it does really seem to me that these core Christian affirmations are among the things that are often currently disputed within the Communion.  And that is not merely to suggest we may tweak the metaphors for their (our?!) hermeneutical appreciation; Colin Gunton has given us far more to focus upon: their very need and actuality.  So much of Anglicanism remains polite bourgeois semi-Pelagianism, by contrast!

We may desire full(er) forgiveness and rich(er) reconciliation among our brothers and sisters.  Yet, for all that, that presupposes a grounding in certain things [a rereading has noticed the double entendre ...], things which are at the core of what is being contested around the Communion.  So, finally, while we may wish to reframe these matters, as does Philp Turner via TWR and its great communion vision of Ephesians, the likes of Eph 4:17ff firmly declare some things are actually wrong, while others offer real hope!  Ancient Greek Tragedy’s fatalism was wrong simply because it was written before Christ - well; er; substantially.  Molora’s rewriting may be enacted because Jesus Christ has come!  And because we humans needed Christ to come!!  And in the light of that judgment, we may discover another course and a new identity in the Spirit.  But until that is duly recognised - yes; that key Williams word - GAFCONs will necessarily also sharpen Canterburys, “as iron sharpens iron”.  So we may expect further sparks to fly - evil does not go quietly into the night (cf. Mugabe - or San Joaquin ...) - even as we seek patiently to establish “patterns of ministry” (O’Donovan again) that may better deal with our present plight: viz the Covenant, in hope!  I guess it is knowing too the joy in that suffering which the real Gospel communicates to us and to which Paul’s Philippians also calls us that undergirds our survival in this very plight.  But it is wise to be forewarned in any event ...!

God bless the preparations for June.

Thanks, Art, for your further thoughts and your comment that 'GAFCONs will necessarily also sharpen Canterburys, “as iron sharpens iron”.'

As I mentioned in my article,

It is encouraging to learn that planners of the Lambeth Conference are considering how to discuss positively in Canterbury some of the concerns which may emanate from GAFCON.

Pluralist (aka Adrian Worsfold) has highlighted this section in my article in his response 'GAFCON and Common Cause', though, from his perspective of course, he thinks this is discouraging.

However, you have not yet commented on the plans of some of the organisers of GAFCON for considering setting up a 'non-Canterbury centred Communion'. It would be good to hear whether you would encourage such a move.

You mention the much-used phrase 'reconfiguring the Communion'. This often tends to imply: 'we have given up on Canterbury as a focus for unity, and the Archbishop has forfeited his right to gather the Communion and so let us set up our own 'non-Canterbury centred Communion.' 

I prefer the phrase 'reshaping', and certainly the structures of the Communion do need 'reshaping' to cope with the growth of the Communion and of the Web and ethical challenges to ecclesiology. As mentioned before, I hope to consider these in my address at Fulcrum in the North in terms of how do we 'read' the Communion and how should it be reshaped.

David Ould has just published 'Philippi or Corinth: Where is the Anglican Communion? a response to Graham Kings' on the Stand Firm site, 8 May 2008, and on his own site, 9 May 2008. For his context, see here.

He comments on the first section of my article, 'Faith and Fellowship in Crisis' concerning Paul's letter to the Philippians. In his introduction he states:

Why should Lambeth be any different? If the month-long conference were even to address these serious matters that now divide us (not that it is really planning to), if they even came up with serious resolutions - what good would it do? What real good did resolution 1.10 in 1998 do as we look back a decade later? It seems to many of us that all it has served to achieve is the crystallisation of our differences.

A few comments of fact:

• the Lambeth Conference is not a month long but 20 days
• it will discuss the 'serious matters that now divide us' - that is the context of the Covenant: it has been decided that a group will discuss the Covenant throughout the conference and not leave its consideration to the final few days, as was first announced 
• although the Conference will not focus on resolutions, some resolutions may well be passed 
• Concerning the significance of Lambeth 1.10, the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote in his 2007 Advent Letter:   

the 1998 Resolution is the only point of reference clearly agreed by the overwhelming majority of the Communion.  This is the point where our common reading of Scripture stands, along with the common reading of the majority within the Christian churches worldwide and through the centuries.

David Ould, after referring to Philippians 3:2, states:

There is, of course, an alternative. There is another gospel table where the dogs are not invited but Euodia and Syntyche sit side by side. At GAFCON evangelicals and anglo-catholics will set aside their rivalries for the service of a greater agreement. It would be great if Kings would join us, and he rightly notes that Paul would have it no other way. But if he wants to share his meal with wolves, our obedience to what Paul wrote to the Philippians will not allow us to come.

A few comments:

• it is admitted that GAFCON has been set up as an 'alternative' conference
• using the inflammatory language of 'dogs' -admittedly used by Paul concerning a group many consider to be 'judaisers' - to refer to people he disagrees with in the present crisis in the Communion is not helpful.
• Greg Venables, Jack Iker and Bob Duncan are coming to Lambeth: are they being disobedient to what Paul wrote to the Philippians?

Thanks for noting this, Graham, and my apologies for not letting you know personally. I had looked for contact details for you both on this site and at your parish but hadn't succeeded.

You raise a number of issues. Let me just begin to respond:

1. With regards to the length of Lambeth, thanks for the reminder.
2.  I do agree that the Conference will discuss certain matters - but discussion of the Covenant (which will be useful) is not the same as addressing the direct presenting issue. Also, as we have argued, even if the Covenant is discussed and an outcome agreed; will TEC and others comply?
3. With regards to the purpose of GAFCON, personally I think we are in some agreement that it is slightly ridiculous not to see some element of it being an "alternative".
4. I use the language of 'dogs' with respect to the heterodox in the Communion, as you note, since Paul uses the same language of those in his day who claim to be Christian but deny the gospel. Frankly, I think strong biblical language is needed to describe such people these days. We must be crystal clear on the damage such teachers do. If Paul would not accept fellowship with them, who are we to suggest it is now appropriate? This comes down, I think, to us either not taking Paul seriously enough or not being convinced that certain figures in the Communion really are false teachers of a most dangerous type.
5. Those orthodox bishops who are attending Lambeth must decide for themselves why they are going. Personally I do not see what they can achieve when the Communion is unwilling to discipline those that deny the gospel. More than that, I am increasingly personally convinced that attendance at Lambeth is disobedience to the Biblical instruction to have nothing whatsoever to do with such false teachers, except for continually correcting them and warning the flock.

Thanks again for noting the post. I look forward to seeing what your readers have to say.

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

lol, I think you're mistaking Euodia and Syntyche for Junia! And even then, there's some disagreement about whether her passport is valid ;-)

David, I think you really do need to take seriously my questioning , and Peter's questioning, of you referring to some Anglican bishops as 'dogs'.

Also, you only commented on the first part of my article. What about my warnings about some organisers of GAFCON planning to set up a 'non-Canterbury centred Communion'? Are you in favour of that idea?