GAFCON

[Jereth]

Does anyone know if any Melburnians are going to GAFCON in June? It would be a shame if we missed out on this terrific opportunity to help chart out the course of faithful gospel ministry for the future.

On a related note, does anyone seriously think there is much to be gained by conservatives attending Lambeth? Hasn't Lambeth been made rather irrelevant by the divisive and insubordinate actions of ECUSA and the Canadian Province? Not that I have a problem with people going -- I just wonder how fruitful it will be, and even if more harm than good may be done.

[Tim Patrick]

I know a number of Melbournians (Melburnians??) have been invited to GAFCON. At least two are going and at least one other is negotiating now. Some of the other invitees have been unable to accept because of other commitments - family, work, etc.

What going to Lambeth means now is a good question. Given that it's one of the four Anglican 'Instruments of Unity', if a bishop goes, it might seem to indicate that they believe they have unity with the other bishops who are present. Some will feel unable to do that in good conscience, believing that some bishops who are going have rejected some key elements of the faith that unifies us.

However, a slightly different understanding might be that Lambeth is a place where bishops go to seek and define their unity.

Of course the irony is that some of the bishops who are going along are those who have completely rejected the controversial resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998. Personally, I'm not quite sure how you can on the one hand reject Lambeth resolutions and on the other turn up to Lambeth to demonstrate your unity with the other bishops... is there a contradiction in there somewhere? Is there a question of integrity?? Maybe it doesn't work that way... I do feel somewhat troubled that the Abp of Canterbury has invited some bishops to Lambeth who openly reject Lambeth.

If you haven't found them already, you might be interested to read the following two pieces by Abp Peter Jensen. They were helpfully highlighted for clergy of Melbourne's Northern and Western Regions in today's Newsletter from our bishop Philip Huggins.

http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/images/uploads/mediareleases/Lambeth_2008.pdf 

http://www.gafcon.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=1 

[Jereth]

I was delighted to learn officially today that representatives from my church (St. Judes) will be attending GAFCON, including our Vicar Richard. It's good that biblically grounded Anglicans in Melbourne don't want to be left out of the deliberations that will be happening there. This is a very serious year for global Anglicanism, and representatives from Melbourne need to have their say. The last thing we want is to be left in the wake of events like stunned mullets, scratching our heads and saying "duh.. what are we supposed to do now?"

I thank God also for Peter Jensen, and our other faithful brothers and sisters in Sydney, who have shown so much courageous leadership on these matters. It's great also to hear what J.I. Packer and David Short have to say on youtube (though I wish I had a faster internet connection than 256k - all these videos are so big...)

I'm thinking of proposing a GAFCON prayer meeting at St. Judes, perhaps prior to the event in May or during the event in June. Richard reminded me today that prayer is definitely a huge priority.

[jwhkuan]

Prayer is a good thing.  There are, as I understand it 50 Australian reps and 20 from NZ.  You might also consider supporting GAFCON financially - it will probably cost delegates somewhere in the region of $4000 per delegate.  

[Matt Williams]

Hey Jereth,

In answer to your question, yes, I do seriously think there is something to be gained by conservative bishops attending Lambeth, and no, I don't think it has been made irrelevant!

In principle, I don't believe in leaving a church body or association until the body itself has resolved to endorse heresy on a first-order issue. (I could understand staying in a bit beyond that, until the body appears beyond much hope of redemption, but that's the watershed for me).

Lambeth hasn't actually resolved to endorse heresy on a first-order issue - on the contrary, it resolved to endorse historic orthodoxy. Some of Lambeth's members, I believe (and take it you agree), have run into first-order error by recasting a sin as a form of holiness (as Jim Packer puts it). I respect that some bishops, applying godly wisdom in good faith, are making a different call regarding Lambeth attendance. But I'd personally prefer to see orthodox bishops at Lambeth making it clear that the basis of this unity is that we all share a mission - the gospel call to turn away from sin and turn to Jesus Christ for salvation. If that mission is not on the agenda of some elements in North America, they need to leave and form their own alliances. I don't see why we should be the ones who leave the existing association at this stage.

Will Lambeth be fruitful if conservative bishops attend? I don't know. There is probably less chance of that now less of them are attending, which saddens me.

I sincerely hope, whatever happens with international alliances, the present alliances within the Australian church remain as they are; or a lot of energy in our own context could be distracted from mission, which is really not what we need at the moment.

Blessings
Matt

[Jereth]

Hi Matt,

This website is a bit like an online Ridley reunion isn't it

I'm curious what exactly you are referring to when you say present alliances in the Australian church. Are you talking about EFAC and organisations like that? Or ...?

Regarding Lambeth, the issues seem very complex and I think it is not a case of one size fits all. I won't pretend to understand what it feels like to stand in African shoes, nor in Asian shoes, etc. I do personally find arguments such as presented by Peter Jensen and David Short persuasive. I think some people are finally saying, after 5 years of patient forbearance, than enough is enough. Others will see it differently and their views are valid too. Perhaps we'll be in a better position to make a judgment about Lambeth's usefulness after it is over and we see its results.

The crucial thing for us in Melbourne (as for Anglicans the world over) is to think through the various contingencies. If the Anglican Communion becomes irreparably divided, where will that leave us? Will our Diocese end up on the side of historic orthodoxy, or on the side which condones doctrinal and moral innovation; or (as seems most likely based on track record) will it attempt to clumsily straddle all sides? What about individual parishes, and individual people? Where will they be left? Will it be possible for evangelical parishes (such as my own) to become aligned doctrinally and missiologically with the Global South while retaining some institutional ties to traditional church structures? How?

I have observed the unfolding events in the Canadian province with interest -- they may well be a premonition of what is to come. One way or another, it is urgent that we start to consider the future now.

Jereth

[Matt Williams]

Hey Jereth,

So far it is all good friends... hopefully it will grow beyond that though!

By 'present alliances in the Australian church' I basically mean general synod, the common recognition of bishops etc - the various dioceses of the Anglican church in Australia in communion with each other.

I find David Short's arguments for parting ways with his own diocese very persuasive - in his shoes I think I would do the same thing, and quite possibly would have done it sooner. I also think it is important that the Anglican commmunion realigns to recognise those people. I'm just not convinced we should give up on the existing communion as the way to do that yet. (Actually we'll never know who was right about that, because if Lambeth fails to achieve a satisfactory way forward we won't be able to say whether that was primarily because it was an unworkable process, or because the conservative bishops short-circuited it by not participating. If Lambeth does achieve a satisfactory way forward without their help, it would be a miracle indeed!)

Anyway, I'm a bit of a sucker for the beauty of practical-theological consistency. The aspect of the withdraw-from-Lambeth-now argument that bothers me is this: it appears the ultimate watershed for withdrawal was not the moment things went awry, but the moment they finally lost patience with the fact things are already awry. The reality is, though, things have been awry for generations - bishops who openly promote first-order error have been present at Lambeth for a very long time. No wonder it is hard to get people to agree on when to leave - everyone has different levels of patience, so we'll all kind of drop off one by one on that model.

I believe a model which could be more consistently applied is not to withdraw from fellowships when they contain members who are in first-order error who have not been subjected to appropriate discipline (otherwise why are we all remaining in the diocese of Melbourne?) but to withdraw from fellowships when the whole fellowship is resolved to endorse that error. (Which is what David Short has done in his context - eventually!)

Yes we do need to think through the various contingencies. I'm betting that whatever 'staying in' means - whether staying in an Anglican communion that is committed to covenants of orthodoxy or staying in an Anglican communion that has been abandoned by conservatives to the winds of liberalism - whatever 'staying in' means, Melbourne Diocese will do it. The reality is, in the event of a realignment within Australian dioceses, whoever wants a different alliance to their diocese will be in a legally precarious situation as regards their own parish resources - both the Wanniassa/Shenton Parks or the Christ Church St Laurence/St James Kings Streets. And in a diocese that is not majority anything in particular, like Melbourne, who knows?

I'd prefer no split at all, at least locally speaking. Dividing saps a lot of energy from the church, not to mention credibility. And why should we be pessimistic? God is still sovereign, last time I checked, and his resume shows an astonishing track record of working in and through mixed churches since the New Testament era, and a mixed nation before that... some of his most amazing works were through the littlest faithful remnant!

"In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." (Jn 16:33)

Cheers
Matt

[Justin Denholm]

Jereth,

As it stands (and it looks like this will be the total group at this stage), there are four Melburnians going to GAFCON - myself, Richard Condie, Richard Trist and Jenny George. I agree that it is critical for our Diocese to be represented, and I feel that our situation in Melbourne will bring some useful insights for the wider communion.

I'm sure I speak for the group when I say that we would very much appreciate the prayers of everyone who supports GAFCON. I think that the experience of people from the Melbourne Diocese will bring an important perspective, and we all want to help Melbourne play a significant role in the discussion and decisions that come from the meeting, both in Jerusalem and afterwards.

Comments and insights from other people will be welcomed, particularly before we go. I would be especially interested in other people's reflections on what you would like to see emerge from GAFCON - I'm sure you all have helpful thoughts for those of us going to reflect on ahead of time.

Justin Denholm

[Jereth]

Reply to Matt:
I don't think it's ever easy to know when is the "right" time to leave an apostate church. Myself and some other Ridley friends have been trying to resolve that question for several months now -- we'll let you know when we arrive at a conclusion! I think that it is good to have a model that can be applied consistently; problem is, specific real-life situations are always filled with all kinds of complexities and so it can be hard to apply a particular theoretical model of "ecclesial separation" to real situations.

I agree with you that division is unpleasant and undesirable; however, I am also a little skeptical about the argument that the energy spent on division is better spent on evangelism and the Kingdom, etc. (You didn't say this specifically Matt, but others have.) I wonder if that sets up a false dichotomy. I think that staying within a clearly corrupt denomination (such as ECUSA and the Canadian Province) does far more harm to the Kingdom, and to gospel witness, than leaving it. We need to consider God's perspective: holiness is non-negotiable, and a church's holiness is threatened by the leaven of apostasy (cf. 1 Cor 5). It may be that separating from a denomination involves a lot of pain, but the consequences of not doing so could be far worse. Why should we be afraid of losing church property, resources, etc? If we seek first God's Kingdom and his righteousness, will not all these things be added to us? (Matt 6:33)

I think the Uniting Church provides a good case in point. As an outside observer, I was dismayed that the evangelical minority did not leave when the denomination apostasised on the issue of homosexuality in 2003. I don't see how anything much was achieved by them staying, and possibly far more has been lost. Who knows how much more powerful gospel ministry could have been done if God's people had left that church, rather than being continually mired in its errors? (Though I admit I am just an outside observer, and so maybe I don't have a full picture.)

Reply to Justin:
I think that what I would most like to see emerge from GAFCON, speaking as a Melburnian, is a robust solution for individual parishes who disagree with their Diocese, and wish to align with the Global South. Matt raised exactly this issue. It's all very easy for a Diocese like Sydney to nick off and do it's own thing, but for an orthodox parish in Melbourne, Perth or Brisbane to resist a liberal-controlled Diocese is much harder. This problem will become particularly acute if our dioceses ever commit error on a first order issue such as homosexuality. (Some have been arguing that such a first order error has already occurred with Melbourne's pro-abortion policy.)

Let's say, hypothetically, that the Perth diocese starts ordaining openly gay clergy and Shenton Park chooses to leave them, triggering off mayhem. Will Sydney diocese step in and give them spiritual, moral and material support while they find their feet again? I think that a commitment to protect each other should be key to any new Orthodox alliance that emerges from GAFCON.

[Matt Williams]

Hi Jereth,

I think you have broadly agreed with my model - I'm suggesting we leave a church when the body itself is apostate, rather than when it has members who are in error. The ambiguity takes place, then, on two other levels - firstly the question of what constitutes apostasy, and secondly the question of what constitutes reasonable hope of reversing the decision.

I think, then, it is important to distinguish three questions:
Firstly 'what is apostasy?'
Secondly 'at what point is a church body actually IN apostasy?'
and Thirdly 'when do you leave a church body that is in apostasy?'.

My answers would be:
a) teaching that which cannot but undermine the gospel
b) when that body, through its official decision making protocols, endorses that teaching as truth.
c) when you see reasonably low chance of event (b) being reversed within a reasonable period of time.

That means that if Melbourne diocese resolves to call any form of sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage a form of holiness, I would take that as my cue to pull out. If I delay, it will only be because I see hope of reversing the decision in a reasonable time-frame.

At the moment no Australian diocese should be able to resolve any such thing - because General Synod has not approved such moves, it would be obviously schismatic. This is largely because Sydney weighs in with something like 40% of the vote on General Synod.

Should an Australian diocese make such a schismatic move, then yes, I think some heavy negotiating will need to start. But that's why I was saying I hope the Australian alliance holds together - so the counterweight of Sydney in General Synod hold back these sorts of innovations and prevents the whole thing precipitating right down to the parish level.

The thing is, the divisions don't stop at parish level. Some of us belong to parishes that are distinctly evangelical or liberal and will plop one way or the other - but a lot of Melbourne parishes don't want to jump into either bed too wholeheartedly - and many contain a real mixture of persuasions within the laity. Thus the impact of a split will rip right into the heart of individual churches. Alternative oversight is not a simple thing.

But we mustn't regard churches without orthodox leadership as somehow beyond God's reach - God's word is still read every week in Anglican services, and the prayer book is full of solid doctrine. While being sober about the genuine damage that false teachers can cause (surely a warning to ourselves first of all), a reformed doctrine of the word still leads us to be hopeful in such circumstances!

Blessings
Matt

[Jereth]

Matt Williams wrote:

Should an Australian diocese make such a schismatic move, then yes, I think some heavy negotiating will need to start. But that's why I was saying I hope the Australian alliance holds together - so the counterweight of Sydney in General Synod hold back these sorts of innovations and prevents the whole thing precipitating right down to the parish level.

The trouble is, what if Sydney decides to go off with Africa/Southern Cone/ACN/etc. in June and schism with the existing Communion? What will we do then? It seems a real possibility so we need to be prepared.

The thing is, the divisions don't stop at parish level. Some of us belong to parishes that are distinctly evangelical or liberal and will plop one way or the other - but a lot of Melbourne parishes don't want to jump into either bed too wholeheartedly - and many contain a real mixture of persuasions within the laity. Thus the impact of a split will rip right into the heart of individual churches. Alternative oversight is not a simple thing.

Are there really that many sizeable Melbourne parishes where the laity will be split between those who support homosexual unions/ordinations and those who oppose it? I would find it surprising that two such discordant views can exist side by side in the same church. (But then again, I've learnt over and over again never to be surprised.)

Jereth

[Cat Patrick]

Jereth wrote:

Are there really that many sizeable Melbourne parishes where the laity will be split between those who support homosexual unions/ordinations and those who oppose it? I would find it surprising that two such discordant views can exist side by side in the same church. (But then again, I've learnt over and over again never to be surprised.)

It may be that there's a significant number of parishes where people differ as to whether they're willing to leave the Communion over it. I can imagine a church with people who feel loyal to the Anglican Communion and its history, and don't want to come out of it, and with people who feel it's a big enough issue to need to come out. It's a pretty painful thing, especially if you feel a great loyalty and desire for unity in the church. To decide that the Anglican Communion had deviated enough for whole parishes to come out of it is an incredibly huge thing - on every level. I feel distressed thinking about it.

I do realise that there may be a need for discussions of this kind, and I'm thankful for GAFCON. But.... I pray that our leaders are wise, discerning, patient, humble, holding unity as a key value of Christian maturity. I think the thing we must long for and pray for is for revival in the Anglican church, and for the leaders of each province, diocese and parish to hold to the rich heritage of Biblical, healthy, contextualised teaching which the Anglican church has. I want to be very careful in talking about division, schism, separation while there is a possibility that Anglican church leaders could stand firm and contend for the gospel.

I think what I'm saying is that I want to see the outcome of GAFCON and Lambeth before making assumptions or statements about what I think the Communion should look like. I still hope and pray that the Anglican Communion will distance itself from Canada and the US (since they are the ones who have walked away from the roots of Anglicanism - the Bible and the 39 articles), and affirm fellowship with those who are standing firm in the truth. Is that too naive?

[Jereth]

Hi Cat,

No, those aren't naive things to hope for. And pray for.

I think that Rev. Short's commentary in the videos are extremely useful. What has happened here is that Canada and the US have walked away from the rest of the Anglican Church -- not vice versa. They are the ones who are schismatic. I'm quite confident that the end result of all this will be that the majority of Anglicans worldwide, including a majority of Melbourne Anglicans, will affirm biblical Orthodoxy along with the Global South, and it will only be a vocal minority who want to support Canada and US. On the whole, Anglicanism will survive. More importantly, the body of Christ -- whatever it may look like visibly and temporally -- will survive.

Jereth

[Jereth]

(reignites old thread -- it's a quiet day at the office...)

It's only 3 weeks away now. They say 1000 people are attending, including 280 bishops. I checked the other day and the official website now has a programme for the conference.

Has anyone heard anything more about what this conference intends to accomplish?

To put it bluntly, will it just be a very expensive talkfest (and tourist trip!), or do the organisers have some real goals in mind for the future of the Church?

And how do the aims of the Melbourne delegation fit into the overall likely direction of the conference?

[Matt Williams]

Hey Jereth,

The aims of the conference haven't been crystallised any more than the programme you have already found. I suspect it is a bit hard for them to say much more until the bishops meet in Jordan and decide what the 'more' is, and then bring their idea(s) to the GAFCON conference itself.

Thus we also can't know how the Melbourne delegation's views will fit in with the direction of the conference, because we do not know what the direction of the conference will be.

I guess all we know is that they obviously intend this to be a significant moment of some sort in the life of the church. The Melbourne delegates (whom I happen to know quite well ) are of one mind in hoping that it will be a positive significant moment for the mission of the church, and not an excessively divisive one (certainly not one that involves a split in the Australian church). If the direction of the conference is, in their opinion, excessively divisive, then their aims may not fit in well at all with the overall conference - but then it would be all the more important for those representatives to be there to understand first-hand what the conference is doing, to hear the stories of others involved, and speak our own story into their considerations.

Cheers
Matt

[Gordon Cheng]

As a non-participant in anything, I hope GAFCON will represent a split.

It won't be the start of a split, because that's already happened.

But it might help people in local churches to be a bit clearer about some of the things that have led to the split.

The more the Anglican communion fragments, the easier it will be for evangelicals to keep doing what they are doing in their local churches without getting distracted.

[Jereth]

Gordon Cheng wrote:

As a non-participant in anything, I hope GAFCON will represent a split.

It won't be the start of a split, because that's already happened.

Why don't we talk more about the productive things that will, God willing, emerge from a "split"?

For example will a "split" mean that non-American Anglicans will have license to go into America and Canada as missionaries and plant new Anglican churches which are faithful to Scripture, and have nothing to do with the existing, corrupt denomination there?

Perhaps it will end up looking like South Africa... a South African friend has explained to me that in South Africa there are actually 2 Anglican denominations existing side by side -- one liberal and one biblical.

[Gordon Cheng]

That's fairly much right about South Africa, Jereth.

But I hope that it will be a lot freer than that. Why stop the number of denominations in a new place at 2? Denominations are just a political alliance to help local churches do their jobs better. So I hope that there will be a lot more church planting going on in the US post-GAFCON. It would be nice if the new churches identified as Anglican, but hardly important.

[Jenny George-2]

Gordon Cheng wrote:

As a non-participant in anything, I hope GAFCON will represent a split.

I'm not as clear as you that this would be the best move. It's important for the world to see a clear statement of the truth of the gospel but it's also always distressing when the church splits. The presence of a large number of denominations is, in and of itself, one of the things that puts people off Christianity before they even start. It does no good to our witness at all. Sometimes, tragically, it is necessary, but surely always something to grieve over.

Gordon Cheng wrote:

The more the Anglican communion fragments, the easier it will be for evangelicals to keep doing what they are doing in their local churches without getting distracted.

This may well be true in Sydney. It would almost certainly not be true in Melbourne or other dioceses in Australia where evangelicals splitting off would mean losing buildings, resources, support structures and making wrenching decisions to leave dioceses which would be likely to split some parishes down the middle. A recipe for more distraction for evangelical churches would be hard to imagine. Most parishes would not be able to resume "doing what they are doing" for years in the midst of all the angst that would be generated. It might be the right thing to do - there are circumstances where I can envisage it being the only alternative available for evangelicals - but let's not kid ourselves about the cost.

[Gordon Cheng]

Jenny George wrote:

This may well be true in Sydney. It would almost certainly not be true in Melbourne or other dioceses in Australia where evangelicals splitting off would mean losing buildings, resources, support structures

Hmm, losing Melbourne diocese's resources and support structures.

I can see how awful that would be for complementarian evangelicals. My feeling is that there'd be a whole bunch of them in a back room at HTD going

But why would a split necessarily involve loss of property? This would only happen if, like the leaders of TEC or Ingham in Canada, some of the liberal members of the diocesan leadership decided to get litigious. I don't see that happening in Melbourne just in the next little while. Splits there will be aplenty post-GAFCON, I predict, but property is safe for the time being.

Not that this is a huge issue anyway. It's a mild headache, but there are some great things about meeting in a local school hall.