Where is Anglicanism heading after GAFCON and Lambeth?

[jwhkuan]

This talk, by Vinay Samuel to the COE Reform conference this month, makes interesting reading.  

It gives an overview of the recent history (beginning with Stott and Packer) of the actions of evangelical Anglicans to assert the integrity of their position within historic Anglicanism.  It notes the fact of Anglicanism's growth into a global Communion and its trajectory away from English colonial roots; and the impact this has on the way Anglican identity is asserted today.  

Full text here:
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/10/19/where-is-anglicanism-heading-after-gafcon-and-lambeth-vinay-samuel/

It's a stimulating and great read!  But towards the end Samuel says:
"Do not worry about seeking power in the formal governance structures.  But build space for orthodox ministry and teaching. This is critically important for the emerging churches in the non-western world. Link with the global orthodox movement of GAFCON."

My concern is that in Australian Anglicanism, the formal governance structures have a great deal of power and that a strategy of abandoning those structures altogether will inevitably lead to a the death of evangelicals within a Diocese by attrition.  And so, to 'build space for orthodoxy', a certain amount of influence and participation in formal structures of governance is necessary.  

Take our diocesan budget and parish assessments for example.  If evangelical priorities for the way our finances are handled are not heard and put into effect, then the assessments that evangelical parishes contribute to central coffers get used to build space for other things that potentially squeeze out orthodox ministries.  

Just my 2cts worth - what do others think?

[Alex Milner]

I think what Vinay Samuel is saying is that evangelical anglican identity is not dependent upon having power within formal governance structures (as evidenced, in contrast, by the lack of ultimate influence of a non-evangelical ABC such as Rowan Williams). I think in that sense he's absolutely right.

But I agree that for reasons of good responsible governance and justice alone, evangelicals should be involved in (and seek to reform) diocesan governance structures at all levels - as indeed Christians should be involved in (secular) corporate/government decision making structures for the purpose of influencing priorities/outcomes for the better.

The difficult issue with involvement in diocesan structures is the extent to which such involvement is complicity with the false teaching of others. For example, the theological views of members of various Diocesan committees will range from orthodox to quite wacky liberal. The recent report to the Diocese on abortion is perhaps a good example of this.

Unlike a (secular) corporate decision making structure, diocesan ones claim to be Christian. Is it therefore the right thing to do to disassociate oneself from such bodies when the decisions they uphold are wrong?

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

Following on from what you are saying Alex. I have seen a group work through Matthew 18 over an issue of false teaching and integrity.

It has been a very interesting process to be part of. There was a loving approach of concern and request for correction followed by a second approach.

It is possible to do this within authority structures as well but what makes this particular process stand out for me is the loving approach. There was never a personal criticism but there was a loving approach and a "getting alongside", a statement of concern.

If these approaches are not heeded then we are right to treat the offender as "a pagan" but only after the loving approach.

I wonder if GAFCON was the result of this process over a 30 year [3 Lambeth] period?

Christians are called to move on and christians are called to hang in there. It is up to each to discern their path.

[Alex Milner]

Hi Phil,

I am guessing you've never sat on a Diocesan committee, but maybe you'll prove me wrong! ;)

I am not discounting what you are saying - certainly when I disagreed with others in the Diocese I'd try to make the effort to catch up for a coffee, understand their position better and explain the concerns I had. Within Melbourne Diocesan circles there is no shortage of 'pleasantness', even if only skin deep.

But at the end of the day, even with best and kindest process, there is no sanction applied for false teaching. The same people turn up each month to the same committee as if nothing happened.

The question that I had - which wasn't rhetorical - was how can a Christian remain on a committee like that with integrity?

Kind regards
Alex



 

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

Alex,

The short answer: You can't

The long answer: Is God calling the christian to hang in there? Is God trying to achieve something else? Is there any form of abuse taking place that one is being called to carefully and analytically document (without emotion clouding the picture) and then report through an established process? Are there others that are standing with the christian and advising them to stay or leave?

Usually false teaching will have other sins manifest but is it false teaching or just a different (genuine) interpretation of scripture that is not heretical?

Are there other ways to achieve your ends? What is the purpose of being on the committee? Are you called to wipe the dust off your feet and leave?

When I was a hot-head that knew everything I got into a very big spat within a church. I was right and I knew I was right. I confronted the others. Unfortunately, even though I was right and something happened that could have been avoided, I acted wrongly. God had something bigger that he was sovereignly allowing and I forgot that "They will know you are christians by your love for one another".

I have since heard from a loving christian who is just as much a sinner as I am what it is like when I am on full attack mode. Honesty from a friend is a beautiful thing. He was on "the other side" of the issue I mention above. He has helped me understand that public attack is not helpful but private expression of concern can achieve much (even though people will not always see the truth).

In terms of GAFCON etc. I find it interesting that high profile Anglicans are not leaving the Communion until they are forced (eg. J I Packer). We have recently been called back into the Anglican Communion and it is certainly an interesting journey at the moment.