Fulcrum Response
to the Lambeth Conference and to GAFCON
Fulcrum coverage of items relating to these two conferences:
1. Lambeth Conference
we appreciate:
- the vision of the Communion 'intensifying' its current relationships ie that those who do not wish to continue on that 'intensifying' trajectory may remain where they are, while the centre of the Communion moves on and the clear implication that no group can veto this movement forward.
- the authority of the Conference to proceed with an Anglican Covenant and the clear sign, in the first Presidential Address that not all are likely to agree to the Covenant. Its content would not be just bland – there would be ‘teeth’ - and eventually a ‘two tier’ Communion would be likely to emerge, of those in the centre who will sign, and of those on the edge who will not.
- the reiterated vital importance of the three moratoria: on public same-sex blessings, on the consecration of bishops in same-sex unions and on cross provincial interventions.
- the announcement of the Pastoral Forum, ‘strengthened by arrangements like the suggested Communion Partners initiative in the
- the learning about different provinces and memorable, poignant stories from multicoloured contexts around the world during the presentations at evening worship and the indaba groups
- the encouragement in the Archbishop’s final words concerning inviting ‘those absent from Lambeth to be involved in these next stages’ and of looking for ‘the best ways of building bridges’ with GAFCON.
- the ministry of the organisers, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Windsor Continuation Group
we question:
- whether some bishops, who are not willing to work with the Windsor Report and the Anglican Covenant, should have been present
we urge:
- a prompt announcement of the chair of the Pastoral Forum and its membership
- the bridge building with GAFCON to begin as soon as possible
- the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) to co-operate with the Pastoral Forum
2. GAFCON
we appreciate concerning GAFCON in
- no schism in the Anglican Communion, but plans to work within the Communion
- the tone of the communiqué being serious
- the positive points of the Jerusalem Declaration and its setting the controversies in a wide context
we appreciate concerning the GAFCON Primates’ Council in
- the decision not to recognise immediately a new province in
- the mention of the Anglican Covenant - even if it is in somewhat dismissive tones - a move forward from the
- the door being left open on the Pastoral Forum, even if it is also mentioned in dismissive tones
- the hint from Greg Venables, in the report of The Living Church, that the FCA Primates will attend the Anglican Communion Primates' Meeting in early 2009
- the polite reference to the Global South Anglican leaders who were not present at GAFCON.
- the clarification that if people who are conservative on sexual issues do not join the FCA, they are not thereby going to be considered ‘unorthodox’
we question:
- the substantial authority that the FCA Primates' Council claims for itself to define who is authentically Anglican - it specifically excludes the Archbishop of Canterbury from such a role
- whether the FCA is in fact a 'church within a church' - or even 'a church in fellowship's clothing'. How can you have a province of the FCA, if the FCA is not a 'church' or a 'communion'? A ‘fellowship’ does not have ‘provinces’. A ‘communion’ or a ‘church’ does.
- whether an FCA province in
- the meaning of becoming members of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans’? Is this a blank cheque? Does membership imply agreement to the FCA strategy as set out in the ‘Jerusalem Declaration and Statement on the Global Anglican Future’?
- whether it would be at all helpful to have interventions in
we urge:
- the FCA Primates’ Council to respond positively to the Pastoral Forum and to the building bridges initiative of the Archbishop of Canterbury
- those in FCA in
