Anglican Mainstream responds to critique of Gafcon
Letter published in Church Times, 20th July 2018.
Sir,
Space does not permit a point-by-point reply to the Revd Rachel Marszalek’s critique of GAFCON on behalf of Fulcrum (Comment, 13 July). But here are two observations.
First, she is concerned that Lambeth Resolution 1.10 is quoted “selectively” in the final Conference Statement. But it is GAFCON that holds to 1.10 in its entirety. The whole resolution was prominently displayed in the programme booklet of the recent Conference. GAFCON-related Provinces have not rejected the pastoral sections of the resolution, as she implies (though, of course, practice can always be improved). Rather, some other Provinces have rejected the biblical doctrines of sex and marriage as expressed in the first part of 1.10; this has torn the fabric of the Communion, creating the need for GAFCON.
Then, Ms Marszalek suggests that GAFCON is split over whether to leave the Communion or remain in it. She chooses to ignore the repeated refrain at the Jerusalem Conference: “We are not leaving the Anglican Communion.” In Provinces where the official, Canterbury-related structures have departed from biblical orthodoxy, it cannot be right that Anglicans wishing to remain faithful to that orthodoxy have to remain tied to those structures to remain Anglican. GAFCON provides a way for them to separate, and then remain in communion with the majority of Anglicans worldwide. If Fulcrum disagree with this, are they suggesting that official recognition by Canterbury is more important than biblical faithfulness, and fellowship with most of the global Church?
ANDREW SYMES Executive Secretary Anglican Mainstream
Read here [£] [scroll down]
Below: A longer response to Rev Marszalek’s letter, answering all four of Fulcrum’s objections.
In reply to Rachel Marszalek’s critique of Gafcon on behalf of Fulcrum (‘Some concerns about Gafcon’, 13 July):
First, she is concerned that Lambeth Resolution I:10 is quoted ‘selectively’ in the final Gafcon Communique. But it is Gafcon which holds to I:10 in its entirety. The whole resolution was prominently displayed in the Conference programme booklet. Gafcon-related Provinces have not rejected the pastoral sections of the Resolution (though practice can always be improved).Rather, some other Provinces have rejected the biblical doctrines of sex and marriage as expressed in the first part of 1.10; this has torn the fabric of the Communion, creating the need for GAFCON.
Second, she asks what is the basis for Gafcon’s authority (in deciding for example that ACNA can be a Province of the Anglican Communion). Technically, of course, this question has a point. Similar questions have always been posed to those who have challenged human authority and religious structures down the ages: to John Wesley, Martin Luther, the apostle Paul, and Jesus himself, among many others. A question needs to be asked in return: why do Fulcrum seem more concerned about Gafcon’s attempts to restore biblical authority to the Communion, than they do about the blatant throwing-off of that authority in some regions?
Thirdly, Fulcrum are concerned about the criticism of the Archbishop Of Canterbury’s phrases ‘walking together’ and ‘good disagreement’, and concludes that ‘walking together at a distance’ is better than ‘walking apart’. In terms of the context of the Archbishop’s phrases, those who were present at the Canterbury Primates Meetings of 2016 and 2017 have reported that spin was frequently used by the managers of those conferences, for example, to airbrush “at a distance” from final press briefings and communiqués, leaving the impression that the Primates were “walking together”. Gafcon are not wanting schism, or to stir up dissension where none exists. Rather, they recognize that schism already exists, and want it to be addressed by a return to a commitment to orthodox belief and practice in the Communion, not by papering over the cracks and minimizing the serious concerns expressed by the majority.
In her final point, Rachel suggests that Gafcon is split over whether to leave the Communion or remain in it. She chooses to ignore the repeated refrain at the Jerusalem Conference: “we are not leaving the Anglican Communion”. In Provinces where the official, Canterbury-related structures have departed from biblical orthodoxy and faithful Anglicans feel severed from fellowship, it cannot be right that they have to remain tied to those structures in order to remain Anglican. Gafcon provides a way for them to separate, and then remain in communion with the majority of Anglicans worldwide. If Fulcrum don’t agree with this, are they suggesting that official recognition by Canterbury is more important than biblical faithfulness and fellowship with most of the global church?
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
