14
January 2014. Mr.
(Rev. Dr. Prof.) Gerald Bray offers his analysis of GAFCON II, held in Nairobi,
21-26 Oct 2013.
A Canterbury Tale
GAFCON II has come and gone, and a
great time was had by all 1300 participants, including over 300 bishops, who
represented twenty-eight of the Anglican Communion’s thirty-eight provinces. It
sounds impressive and in many ways it was, but statistics of this kind conceal
as much as they reveal. Many of the bigger African provinces turned out in
force, but representation from the developed world was patchy and at the
episcopal level almost non-existent. Much as it wants to be a movement for the
renewal of worldwide Anglicanism, GAFCON is a bit like the curate’s egg—good in
parts. Its leadership is committed, its followers are loyal and expectant, but
its influence remains limited to the sorts of people who would support its aims
even if it did not exist. It has not yet reached out beyond its predictable
support base, and unless it does so, the energy that has gone into it will be
dissipated and it will go the way of other initiatives that never got anywhere.
Having said that, there is no denying that GAFCON has come a long
way in a short time. The improvised character of GAFCON I has gone and in its
place has come a much more sophisticated and responsible organisation. No other
group of Anglicans could stage an event with as broad a participation, and that
alone ought to persuade people to take it seriously.
Unfortunately, things do not work like that in the real Anglican
world. The archbishop of Canterbury could not attend but he was good enough to
find time in his diary to make a quick trip to Kenya just before it opened, and
to send greetings to it on a video that was played to the assembled delegates.
He meant well, and those who met him testified to the warm relations that they
had with him. Unfortunately everything he said and did betrayed the fact that
the English church establishment had been outflanked and had effectively missed
the bus. The official communiqué from Lambeth Palace stated that the main
reason for the archbishop’s visit to Kenya was to express solidarity with the
victims of the Westgate Shopping Centre atrocity the previous month, but
laudable though sympathy for them was, it was an implausible excuse. The
archbishop did not rush off to Peshawar to show his support for Christian
victims of Muslim terrorism in Pakistan, nor would anyone have expected him to.
Unless
of course, GAFCON had been meeting there at the same time… In the end things
got so bad that Lambeth Palace was citing the baptism of Prince George as a
reason for the archbishop’s non-attendance, as if the royal family would not
have been willing to find a more convenient date for the ceremony. The
impression left is one of incompetence and dysfunctionality in which almost any
excuse to downplay the significance of GAFCON has been eagerly seized on and
exploited for far more than it is worth.
The archbishop of Canterbury means well and there is no
doubt that his heart is with GAFCON in many ways. He told the delegates that he
wants its aims to be those of the Communion as a whole and there is no reason
not to believe him. But if he is going to occupy the place that the Anglican
Communion assigns to him and exercise the kind of influence for good that he
undoubtedly wants to, he will have to get with the programme, as the Americans
say. GAFCON is not just one more Anglican organisation, like the Mothers’
Union, that can be flattered and pacified by an occasional nod from the
hierarchy. It is a renewal movement that wants to make its agenda that of the
church as a whole, and it will expect Justin Welby to nail his colours to the
mast. It is a wonderful opportunity for him to assume the leadership of the
Communion and use the GAFCON base to bring about the kinds of changes that he
wants to see, but will he take it? One is reminded of Louis XVI in the early
years of the French Revolution. The Third Estate handed their much-needed
reforms to him on a plate and begged him to be their leader, but Louis, good
man that he was at heart and eager to please, lacked the vision and the courage
to fulfil his historical destiny and so paid the price for misplaced loyalty to
a lost cause. Will Justin Welby come to a similar end, and for the same
reasons?
The stark nature of the problem can be seen by
comparing Dr. Welby’s video message to GAFCON with the address given by its
chairman, the archbishop of Kenya. Both speeches were positive and upbeat, but
Canterbury’s looks decidedly anaemic next to Kenya’s. Dr Welby told the
delegates that they must strive for holiness, which is true and encouraging. He
mentioned that in many places there has been a sexual revolution in the last
generation, but inexplicably failed to add that for Christians, holiness means
confining sexual activity to what it is meant for—heterosexual monogamy.
Coyness on so obvious a point as this is not a good sign. The archbishop of
Canterbury wants to seek harmony and reconciliation among people who hold very
different views, but there are limits to such a vision and in his address the
archbishop of Kenya made it plain what those limits were.
It is obviously true, as Canterbury said, that
Christians disagree about many things and that we have to live together. But it
is also true that there is a core of beliefs that cannot be compromised, and as
Kenya did not hesitate to point out, it is there that the rub lies. What is
dividing the Anglican Communion is not a disagreement between Christians who
hold different opinions about secondary matters, but a titanic struggle between
believers and apostates who want to call themselves ‘Anglicans.’ This is very
hard for the English establishment to accept, but it is a fact that cannot be
denied. The crisis is particularly acute in the Western provinces, where the corporate
culture of the church reflects the prevailing trends in society. It is no
secret that the advanced countries of the West have abandoned their inherited
Christianity for atheism. The pride and arrogance that comes from economic
success and technological progress has led many to adopt beliefs and practices
that go completely against the teaching of the Bible, which is discounted and
publicly derided, even by people who claim to be members of the church.
Students of history know that this cannot go on
forever—sooner or later there will be a reckoning, when the pride of man will
be knocked low. Pontius Pilate no doubt thought that the Roman Empire would
last forever, but even as he passed judgment on Jesus the barbarians were
beginning to stir and the seeds of ultimate collapse were being sown. Does
anyone in Europe, America or Australia seriously think that China, India and
Africa will subsidise a decadent and immoral West indefinitely? Can they not
see the writing on the wall? And do Anglicans in particular not understand that
GAFCON draws its strength from these modern ‘barbarians’ (pardon the term) who
will eventually triumph? The African primates sense this, and with prophetic
grace they are calling their erring brothers and sisters in the developed world
to repent before it is too late. To their minds, the appearance of an
archbishop of Canterbury who is on their spiritual wavelength is God’s final
call to the Western provinces to get on board before the catastrophe strikes,
and they expect their warnings to be heeded.
Nobody should be in any doubt
about this. If the Anglican Communion is to survive, and if its witness to the
developed world is to be faithful to the Gospel, its Western branches will have
to eat humble pie and conform to what GAFCON sees as necessary. If that does
not happen, then GAFCON and its supporters will go their own way and the rest
of the Communion will be left high and dry. This is what the archbishop of
Canterbury needs to take on board as part of his own strategy for renewal.
Trying to balance the orthodoxy of GAFCON with the heresies of those who
disagree with it will not work. A choice must be made, and the GAFCON way,
though not perfect, is still the only one that has anything to offer the church
as a whole.
The GAFCON leadership, for its part, needs to take stock of its
position and develop its own strategy for its dealings with the wider
Communion. Here it can learn a lot from the failure of the evangelical wing of
the Church of England to make any serious impression on either the church or
the nation, despite its numbers and enthusiasm. Like GAFCON, English
Evangelicals have been great organisers. Between 1967 and 2003 they were able
to gather four NEACs (National Evangelical Anglican Conferences or Congresses)
which were well-attended and apparently successful. They also put together a
Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and an Anglican Evangelical
Assembly (AEA), producing a kind of shadow General Synod within the wider
church. Unfortunately the only effect of this was to create an added layer of
meetings where people have ended up discussing very little at great length.
Those involved are fully occupied with this and think that what they are doing
is important, but nobody else pays any attention. Meanwhile, the real
government of the church has fallen into the hands of liberals who have used
their influence to pass legislation that guarantees a permanent second-class
status for Evangelicals, who now run the risk of being shut out of the church
altogether. In particular, the liberals have ensured that nobody who opposes
women’s ordination (or especially their consecration to the episcopate) has any
hope of entering the church’s hierarchy, and that new ordinands may have
trouble even finding a curacy. It is small consolation to be told that they can
always be elected to CEEC instead.
This is the fate that GAFCON must avoid. It needs to broaden its
base in the places where it is weak, and especially in the Church of England,
which has effectively ignored it. Some GAFCON delegates were disappointed that
the archbishop of Canterbury did not make it the priority that they thought it
should have been, but they need to appreciate that Justin Welby was far keener
on GAFCON than almost everyone he deals with on a day-to-day basis. It is this
that must change, and Dr Welby ought to know that if he has any hope of
realising his dream for a revitalised church, GAFCON can and should be his
strongest ally. This is what the GAFCON leadership ought to be aiming for, and
there are many ways that it can pursue its goals without tearing the Anglican
house down.
One date that must concentrate everyone’s minds is 2018—the year
that the next Lambeth Conference is due and that another GAFCON might
conceivably be held. The leaders of GAFCON II should be getting together with
Canterbury now (not in four years’ time) in order to prepare for that
conjunction. The best outcome for everyone would be to turn the next Lambeth
Conference into GAFCON III, using the Jerusalem Declaration and its successors
as the new charter for the whole Anglican Communion. Promoting the gay agenda
while fobbing the Africans off with seminars on AIDS and third-world
development, as was tried in 2008, will not work next time, and the sooner
everyone recognises that, the better. The Lambeth Conference will have to
tackle GAFCON’s priorities or it will not happen, but at the same time, GAFCON
will have to engage the rest of the Communion or its raison d’être will
disappear. The temptation to organise a parallel conference and boycott Lambeth
must be resisted, not only because it is pointless but because it will be
counter-productive. If GAFCON really does represent the majority of the
Anglican world then it must seize the initiative and challenge its opponents to
respond, and not allow them to set the agenda.
In the run-up to this, there are a number of things that can be
done by people on the ground. In England, for example, the synodical elections
in 2015 can be contested by candidates who make support for GAFCON and its aims
part of their programme. The emphasis on spiritual renewal and mission should
be positive—people will not vote for candidates who come across as negative,
however worthy they may be in other ways. The middle ground, which does not
understand what is really going on and does not want to be associated with
anything that appears to be factional and divisive, must be won over. This can
only be done by patient, hard work at grassroots level. It is scandalous that a
fringe group like WATCH (Women and the Church) can determine the church’s
priorities and get everyone worked up over secondary issues, when the central
purpose for which it exists is ignored and those who object are brushed aside.
It is here that the archbishop of Canterbury can lend his weight to GAFCON and
where GAFCON’s supporters can back him. We must strive to put first things
first in the life of the church, a task that in itself is liable to prove
difficult and contentious.
The hardest thing for some to swallow will be the fact that if the
right priorities are re-established in the Anglican Communion, some of its
branches are liable to break away. The most obvious one of these is the
American Episcopal Church (TEC), whose leadership is so far gone in apostasy
that it is hard to believe that it could ever return to anything resembling
biblical Christianity. But there are still many in that church who have not
bowed the knee to Baal, and it is just possible that if they are given the
right encouragement they might rise to the surface and reclaim their church.
GAFCON needs to connect with these people and support them, while at the same
time giving help to those who have left or been forced out of TEC. This is not
an either-or situation but a both-and one. In Australia, GAFCON must break out
of its stronghold in Sydney and establish itself elsewhere as well. Melbourne,
Adelaide and Perth contain many ordinary people and parishes that ought to be
susceptible to its appeal, and every effort must be made to achieve a
meaningful presence there and elsewhere. The disparate conservative elements in
New Zealand need to be brought together and encouraged to exert what influence
they can beyond the confines of the Nelson diocese, and the same is true of
Canada. In both those countries there is a great deal of sympathy for the
developing world, and it should be possible for GAFCON dominated provinces to
establish links (or exploit the ones they already have) with those churches.
That way the GAFCON vision can be introduced from the outside, by people who
already attract a listening ear, and not appear like the knee-jerk reaction of
a disgruntled fringe.
What is needed is flexibility, enterprise and a global vision.
GAFCON has a real chance of increasing its support in the Church of Ireland,
and it should be doing so. In Southern Africa there is a great deal of sympathy
for its aims and the Anglican churches there ought to be cultivated for
support. All over the world, GAFCON’s leaders need to make a cool and realistic
assessment of what the possibilities are and take advantage of every door that
opens to them.
Another important aspect of GAFCON that is
easily overlooked is that it is not a movement confined to bishops and clergy.
The fact that the Lambeth Conference is exclusively episcopal is now a real
weakness, and this lopsidedness needs to be challenged. Why should only bishops
attend a worldwide gathering of Anglicans? Instead of inviting them (and having
to decide which ones to recognise) could the archbishop of Canterbury not issue
an open invitation to the different provinces to send whomever they want? The
presence of delegates from their clergy, and especially from their laity, might
have a sobering effect on first-world prelates that nobody from the majority
world could match. What bishop would want to be embarrassed by members of his
own diocese who appear to be more in tune with the renewal agenda than he is?
Some of them might well be renewed themselves if presented with such a
challenge, and that would be the best outcome of all.
Whatever else GAFCON does, it must not appear to be
nothing but a heresy-hunting organisation that is more intent on rooting out
those whom it finds unacceptable than on preaching the Word of God. If it can
ensure that those who take the platform at the next Lambeth Conference share
its spirit and its goals, then those who cannot hear its message will either
depart of their own accord or be outvoted by the faithful majority. But in
doing this, the primary aim must always be to win souls, including those of
church leaders who have gone astray. That will not be easy, but carrying the
cross never is. This is the challenge that faces us over the next five years,
and it is one for which the present archbishop of Canterbury is uniquely
well-equipped. He must seize the leadership role that the Communion expects
from him, stop trying to please everybody with false appeals to
‘reconciliation,’ and exercise the authority that has been delegated to him by
the church. If he stands up to be counted, then others will stand up behind
him—he does not have to worry about that. His declared opposition to gay
marriage in the House of Lords’ debate in June 2013 was not popular in liberal
circles, but the media were much gentler on him than they might have been. They
knew that he was only putting forward standard Christian teaching on the
subject, which is what he was expected to do, and they respected him for it.
Justin Welby is a man like the rest of us, and he needs our prayers and our
encouragement. In many ways he is in the position of Esther—an alien spiritual
presence in a hostile environment. But just as Mordechai saw that she had been
called to the kingdom for such a time as that and told her that she must do her
duty, so we must see that Justin Welby has been called to the church for such a
time as this. Like Esther, he too must do his duty, and if he puts his trust in
God he need have no fear of what man can do to him.
Let us hope and pray that the long-term outcome of
GAFCON II will be a reconciliation between its majority provinces and the see
of Canterbury (in particular) and that in the wake of that, the Anglican
Communion will be truly regenerated according to the principles of the Bible
and in the power of the Holy Spirit who alone can bring the Word of God to
life.
GERALD BRAY
For the rest, see:
No comments:
Post a Comment