Good article, Tim!

The first group mentioned by Timothy Morgan are called the ‘separatists’.

Are the following quotations relevant to that group? They are from an address to GAFCON by Vinay Samuel, given in an article by Riazat Butt in The Guardian, 25 June 2008,  ‘Anglican Conservative accuses ‘relic’ Williams of colonial mindset’ :

Canon Vinay Samuel, a member of the Global Anglican Future Conference (Gafcon) leadership team, said Rowan Williams did not adequately appreciate the intellectual subtlety and depth of the developing world.

“We know a little more than he gives us a credit for. People like me are taken for granted. The church is such a mess and unable to understand the post-colonial reality,” Samuel said…

“Rowan Williams is too much of a relic of the old left ideology which is not pragmatic enough. I think it’s that rather than racism.”

He described the appointment of the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, as a “symbolic gesture”, arguing that the first black primate in the Church of England had done little to influence the establishment or advance the cause of African churches.

“Maybe it will make a difference, it’s a beginning, but I’m not sure it has a great deal of promise.” ...

“I would dismantle Canterbury and Lambeth, they have little influence and do not reflect the reality of the world,” Samuel said.

What do people think about these comments? It may be worth remembering that:

1. John Chew, the Bishop of Singapore and Archbishop of South East Asia is secretary of the Covenant Design Group and is on the Windsor Continuation Group.

2. Michael Poon, Director of the Centre for the Study of Christianity in Asia, Singapore, and the leading theologian of the Global South Anglican movement, has been invited to lead two self select sessions at the Lambeth Conference on ‘Our Post-Colonial Communion’.

3. Joseph Galgalo, Professor of Systematic and Contextual Theology at St Paul’s University, Limuru, Kenya, will be joining Michael Poon in one of those sessions.

4. The Archbishop of Canterbury was involved in all of these appointments.

Graham, I think that unless Fulcrum stops trying to demonise those working for separation, and starts uniting with them to fight the common enemy of liberalism, you will end up pushing them out of the communion. If a wing falls off an aeroplane, it can’t fly anymore and will crash. If those working for separation leave, the Anglican Communion will never recover. Your brother is not your enemy. Work with them. Give them a reason to stay and stop trying to undermine them at every turn.

I think this document is also relevant.

Thanks, Observing. I hope and pray very much indeed that, to use your words, ‘those working for separation’ neither leave the Communion, nor are pushed out of the Communion. That would be disastrous. Yes, ‘those working for separation’ and those ‘working for reform from within’ - which I thought was the direction GAFCON claimed to be taking now - need to out-think and to out-write what I have called ‘autonomous rootless liberalism’.

Graham, I think its clear from the reports coming out of GAFCON that those attending are made up of those working for separation, AND those working for reform from within, and possibly the 3rd strand mentioned in the article above (which is new).  I find it disappointing that Fulcrum cannot find a way to unite with them, even if that means a 4th strand.  There is evidently some bad blood about Wycliffe and lots of other historical problems looking at the comments on the Fulcrum site. But its time to heal those wounds and find a way to work together. Fulcrum has more in common than in difference with those in GAFCON.  The Anglican Communion is at a critical juncture, and needs GAFCON and Fulcrum united. Why not make some calls and build some bridges before Lambeth?

Thanks, Observing. Yes, calls and bridges do need to be made and will be made. The Church of England Evangelical Council (currently chaired by the Principal of Wycliffe Hall) is meant to be the umbrella body bringing together various groups of evangelical Anglicans and the one day meeting of NEAC, which CEEC are planning in November, will be crucial.

Thanks Graham, and apologies for my harsh tone earlier. I look forward to posts in the weeks and months ahead on T19 and Fulcrum about divisions being healed and bridges being rebuilt!

Graham Kings (#2),

Canon Vinay Samuel’s remarks that you cite from Butt’s article in the Guardian are indeed some of the harshest and most strident that have surfaced and come out of GAFCon so far.  He probably does represent the “separatist” strand in terms of Tim Morgan’s simple three categories.  Since I haven’t seen the full context of the Indian theologian’s quite provocative and inflammatory remarks, I won’t venture any substantive comment on them.

However, I would just point out that such a neat and clean little trichotomy as Tim Morgan’s, while it’s a useful and convenient way of getting a handle on the range of opinions represented by the over 1,000 participants in this historic event, can’t do justice to the fact that the range of views about what to do doubtless must actually cover a whole continuum or spectrum with many gradations.  Time will tell where the bulk of people fall on that spectrum.

To me the interesting group is that last one that journalist Tim Morgan can’t find any better name for than just “the new paradigm.”  From his description of that rather mysterious group, it sure looks like +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted would fall in that last category.  The Moderator of the CCP’s bold call for a whole new Settlement for the Anglican Communion, a Global, Post-Colonial Settlement to REPLACE (and that’s the key word, not supplement, but replace) the familiar “Reformation (or Elizabethan) Settlement” would certainly seem to qualify as a “new paradigm” sort of position.  At least, that is certainly the group with which I would tend to identify myself, and so naturally I find it the most intriguing.

As for the positive roles assigned at Lambeth to prominent Global South leaders like ++John Chew and Michael Poon+, I certainly rejoice in those things, but it’s FAR too little to make the kind of difference necessary to resolve our vexing, prolonged crisis.  Personally, I’m glad such stalwarts of the orthodox cause will be there in Kent next month.  Some orthodox champions need to be there.  But will they refuse to share communion with the heretical advocates of the false gospel of inclusivity and relativism?  Will they in fact SHUN [phrase deleted] the American Presiding Bishop?  For make no mistake, nothing less is absolutely necessary (1 Cor. 5:11; Rom. 16:17-18).

The time for fruitless dialogue is over.  The time for bold, decisive action is here.

Let me pose a question to you, Graham, in turn.  What do you think of +Michael Nazir-Ali and +Wallace Benn (and apparently +Peter Broadbent) boycotting the upcoming Lambeth?  You’ve probably written about that on the Fulcrum site.  But which of Morgan’s three broad categories would you put those men in?

David Handy+

An excellent analysis which points out the lack of a clear common vision among orthodox Anglicans. The myriad of Anglican splinter groups will be multiplied in “the new paradigm”, thus making unified action more difficult. This does not bode well for the future, as the liberal contingents are unified in purpose and strategy. They are advancing their agenda of inclusion - pluralism, relativism, and tolerance - which is in effect a new religious movement, and to date have suffered no real setbacks. Clearly, I am a “separationist”, which in reality means I continue to advocate for a vision of a vibrant, unified, orthodox, Anglican communion, which is no longer conjoined with theologies and practices which are antithetical to the gospel. This kind unity and clarity of vision will open the door for an Anglican revival, such as the world has never seen. The longer we remain within vaguely distinguished splinter groups, the more difficult it becomes to unite and act.

And then we’ll have a new Protestant church.

I know that Riazat Butt is a very new correspondent, bright, capable and enthusiastic but she does seem to have managed to produce some dubious reports from Gafcon, so without having heard a recording of Canon Samuels’ remarks I am not prepared to accept these reports without corroboration.

Dr Kings, I share Observing’s well-expressed frustration.  I don’t know how you can do it, but please encourage Fulcrum to make an effort to bury the hatchet with some members of Reform, the Church Society and others and this requires efforts from their side as well.  I am not as extreme as some ‘conservative evangelical’ organisations; neither am I as anti-them and everything they say as some ‘open conservatives’.  There is no-one to represent the large group of traditional evangelical people like me.  All I see is the sort of polarisation that has split and undermined the US conservative witness in so many ways.

Please, please, please get a grip.

Fr. Jack, in support or your point, assume that you have a group that has an agenda that is so important to them that they are willing to destroy the organization to which they belong.  Further assume that they are oppsed by a group that rejects their agenda, but is determined to remain in and preserve the organization at all costs.  Which do you think will prevail?

#12

Which will prevail?

Christ’s truth will prevail.

13, of course, but not necessarily in that organization.

#8, New Reformation Advocate, David.

I think your comment about the Presiding Bishop of TEC, in your 4th paragraph, should have been deleted by Kendall and/or the Elves, since it does not pass their editiorial policy on TitusOneNine. It is not appropriate on TitusOneNine.

#15 Respectfully, as Brits who have not had to deal with our priests inhibited, our bishops deposed, canons abused and all the hurt that goes with it perhaps we should avoid involvement and further stirring things up.  Enforcement or amendment of posts is of course a matter for Dr Harmon and the elves.

Could someone spell out more clearly why ++Duncan was not there? This seems odd in the extreme.  Larry

To all, Graham Kings was quite right in his objection in his #15 to an outrageous slur I allowed to slip out in my #8 above.  My abusive language about the PB was indeed inappropriate, and I regret it.  I shouldn’t post that late at night when I’m tired and cranky.  Like the rest of us, I’m tempted at times to forget that blatant heretics in high places aren’t the enemy, Satan is.  We wrestle not against flesh and blood…  In fact, in many ways, ++KJS and those like her are POWs, deceived and held prisoner by the Father of Lies.

I apologize to all, for degrading the tone of this thread.  I would welcome the Elves deleting the offensive phrase in question.  But I stand by the rest of my #8.

David Handy+

#18 Bravo Rev. Handy.

Thanks for your gracious apology David+

Larry, our understanding is that Bp. Duncan was at the pre-GAFCON consultation in Jordan, and then stayed behind in Jordan to host the Sudanese and Pakistani bishops when the rest of the group left for Jerusalem earlier than planned due to ++Akinola’s problems with being refused entry to Jordan.  He then went to Italy for a family celebration of his 60th birthday.  Presumably his trip to Italy was planned before GAFCON was ever announced and already known to all the GAFCON leaders.  Bp. Scriven of Pittsburgh has been at GAFCON in Jerusalem.

Thanks, David, for #18 and Elves for #20. Hope the phrase in #8 will be deleted soon, as David suggested.

the phrase is edited out.  Sorry, meant to do it earlier, then got interrupted.