Anglican Mainstream

A presentation at the NEAC 5 Saturday 15th November 2008 All Souls Langham Place.

Thank you for your invitation to speak on “I was there” at GAFCON and Lambeth.

It is a special privilege to be speaking in All Souls. I was part of the church family here in the late ‘70’s; and the testing of a call to the ordained ministry began here. I have been Bishop of Birkenhead since March 07; before that time I served in Coventry and Aston, Birmingham.

To speak personally about Gafcon and Lambeth in half an hour is quite a challenge; there is more to be said about everything I say, and much left unsaid.

Backround to Gafcon and Lambeth.
 
The first invitation to the Lambeth Conference was given by Archbp. Rowan in May 07.  The invitation included the bishops of TEC (except Gene Robinson or those consecrated under the jurisdiction of African provinces to serve in the US with disaffected parishes from TEC). The Windsor process set up to identify what was at stake in the Anglican communion after that consecration in 2003, and how the Communion should respond was still ongoing as TEC had been given until 30 Sept to intimate whether they would be complying with the requests made of them by the Primates meeting which had taken place in Dar es salaam in Feb. They and had not yet done so. Would an invitation to Lambeth before that date be like a letting off the hook? What would the impact of the invitation be in other parts of the Communion.  The answer soon came.

The Archbishop of Uganda declared that those who consecrated Gene Robinson, and had not repented or apologised for that consecration, were just as responsible for the breach in the Communion as Gene Robinson himself, and if those TEC bishops were to attend Lambeth neither he nor the other bishops of Uganda would be coming.

Vinay Samuel in his recent address to the Reform Conference identifies this moment, this invitation given to the TEC, as being the trigger for GAFCON. I think he is right about that. At GAFCON in my conversations with African Bishops, this was the moment when they became convinced that nothing would be done to discipline TEC. From then on, other provinces declared they would not be coming to Lambeth.

But the decision to hold  GAFCON was still some way off.  The Global South network which included provinces in SE Asia, the Middle East. India and Pakistan, as well as S America, Africa, and others, was not of one mind about the desirability of another conference before Lambeth.

That summer ’07 my prayers were focused on the calling of an EFAC Conference which had traditionally preceded Lambeth. I wondered if such a conference could hold together those who were undecided whether to attend Lambeth. At that time I could not see myself attending Lambeth, to be present with North Americans whose ignoring of the resolutions of the last Lambeth had caused maybe up to 5 African provinces to be absent.
 
In Aston we had been about building a black/white and Asian church, and going to Lambeth without the Africans seemed to be a denial of the ministry God had given me. But I could get no sense of whether an EFAC conference might be called; there was a waiting on the decision of the Global South, a reluctance to offer anything that might look like an Anglo Saxon solution.

At Advent ‘07 the A/C wrote again to the bishops of the A Comm., committing Lambeth to the authority of scripture and declaring that anyone coming to Lambeth was giving a “Yes” to the Windsor Process which was still ongoing.
In time the Global South agreed to differ. GAFCON was planned to take place before Lambeth while other of the Global South believed the right strategy was still to attend Lambeth; some attended both.

At the beginning of this year I decided, with my diocesan bishop’s support, to go to both GAFCON and Lambeth. There were challenges about the basis of both, but I thought “I would like to make up my own mind”. All through this time it has felt like walking in a darkened room with arms outstretched in front unable to see in front of one’s own hands, but trusting in the Lord who knows the way we should take and will guide.

So with little more than 6 months planning, GAFCON in Jerusalem came together.  5 African Provinces Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and Tanzania, the Province of the Southern Cone, also from N America, Australia, the UK and many others, bishops and spouses, clergy and lay people were present. Not for the only time this summer the word “miracle” was used to describe what happened.

GAFCON

The minister of Christ Church Jerusalem said to me during the conference and pilgrimage (for that had become an important part of the gathering and one of the reasons for meeting in Jerusalem) “thank you for coming and being willing to be vilified with us”. Why was there such hostility and fear to GAFCON happening? Many reasons, no doubt, and the Lord knows them and can judge. I heard a great deal about conspiracy theories for schism and separation, before, during and after I was there. I have to say from my very limited perspective, I didn’t see it, and my antennae were attuned to try to spot it.

The process seemed open, with a genuine desire expressed by the Archbishop of Sydney to seek God’s will and to be open to the mind of the conference itself.

The Archbishop of Nigeria was very much in the backround. The statement and declaration came out of this process towards the end of the conference, and more on this in a moment. But leading up to it was worship, superb biblical exposition, bible study, workshops, plenary addresses given by Os Guinness, Lamin Sanneh among others, and pilgrimage to the very places where the Lord Jesus was betrayed, crucified and risen and where the apostles gathered to be filled with the Holy Spirit. I met African bishops far from uncritical about some Anglican expressions of Christianity in Africa; present were  ordained women in clerical collars from Uganda and N America, as well as those opposed to the ordination of women; anglo catholics as well as evangelicals; conservatives and charismatics; one of my greatest surprises was the presence of a Bishop from TEC who is not planning to leave (yet), a great and godly man. It was wonderful to be there, an unforgettable experience. And yet I knew the statement was coming and I approached that time with dread. Before I say why, I need to say that I have never been at any gathering where such a statement when presented to the whole conference had got the sense of the conference pretty much exactly right. The draft S and D were greeted with acclamation, a standing ovation. Why, given all I’ve said could I not join in with the same enthusiasm?

By the time the draft was presented on the Friday, I was the only English Bishop still able to be present (Ordinations had required + Michael, Wallace and Paul to return to England).

 I raised two questions on the draft, as we were invited to do:

1 Given the intention to create a new Primates Council, did that Council now see itself as the supreme authority in the Anglican Communion for determining matters of orthodoxy?
2 Given the declaration that Anglicanism was not dependent on the A/C, what relationship did GAFCON envisage in the future with the see of Canterbury and the primacy of honour?

Others raised similar questions and the final S and D was modified to recognise the historic relationship with Canterbury and a perhaps more tightly drawn set of responsibilities for the new Council
My anguish, for such it was, (I identified very much with Jeremiah 8:21) focused on two fears which the English group present graciously allowed me to share.

Fear 1. was that the S/D by its comments on the A/C and the process would lead to a reaction by the English Bishops and perhaps the General Synod, defending the A/C, attempting to rubbish GAFCON, and not hear the call of among others Lamin Sanneh that the Anglican Communion should embrace GAFCON.

Fear 2 was that some among the English ministers would themselves start to seek alternative Episcopal oversight. (I had one or two conversations with some who had issues in their dioceses). I said that if such alternative oversight was given, it would set a precedent in other dioceses where the bishops might be “orthodox”, but clergy “liberal”, and if those clergy then sought oversight say from TEC, the result would be chaos, it would be disastrous for the Gospel in Britain and Satan would be rubbing his hands with glee. Os Guinness in his lecture on “The Gospel and secularism” called us to stand against “the lethal distortions of faith in the modern world”; one of those distortions he identified as “the shift from authority to preference”. I thought that in our zeal to defend the faith we could become vulnerable to that temptation, the evil one turning our very passion for the truth to his advantage.

These fears remain, with one clarification in the light of Lambeth and what has developed since. The establishment of the Primates Council is an attempt to assert an authority where there is none; the A/C has spoken himself, of the “incoherence” of the present structures. Now an African Anglicanism with support from other parts of the world, has asserted its own authority, not based on historical precedent but on the Word of God. The Jerusalem Declaration grounds Anglicanism in sound doctrine, and if it is not the first word or even the last word, it is in these days a profound word which I think, all Anglicans should endorse and all evangelical Anglicans endorse. A Covenant that is unable to embrace that Declaration I fear will be worthless.

And so to Lambeth itself. There was an EFAC conference in Bristol between GAFCON and Lambeth. I have not been asked to speak of it, and will say no more here, except that though the numbers attending were very small, they represented a meeting of leaders of the Global South and those present at GAFCON, and strengthened my sense that God has not yet finished with that ministry, one of the very many that owe more than we can say to the ministry of the former Rector Emeritus of All Souls Langham Place. 

LAMBETH

The Bishops (600) began in retreat in Canterbury . A small number had also been at Gafcon including the Archbishops of West Africa, [Tanzania], and the Southern Cone. The absence of over 200 was felt by none more keenly than by the A/C. So hard to summarise that retreat; so much focus on Paul and his testimony to the Lord Jesus; the theme was God’s mission and a bishop’s discipleship. To give you an insight into the heart of the A/C whose leadership was absolutely pivotal throughout the conference, here is his quotation from 2 Corinthians 11:28-29

“Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin and I do not inwardly burn?”, Here is his comment which whatever else it will do will help us pray for him and help us understand what he is trying to do “The only way it seems of being a successful apostle is to be an apostle who is quite unable to distance himself from the weakness of everybody else”. One of the challenges facing us as evangelicals is that we want him to be strong and he insists on being weak. He wanted us as bishops to put that pair of verses like the Commandments onto our forearms and foreheads, and be in our hearts and minds daily and hourly. I think that is a good wish.

Then the conference began; no process other than meeting in Bible study groups (8), indaba groups (8×5=40), and then open hearings on Windsor and the Covenant (anything up to 600). Plenary sessions with distinguished visitors, and daily worship led by the different provinces. No resolutions, no statement. The 1998 resolution 1:10 affirming the church’s orthodox teaching on human sexuality was declared by the A/C to still be the position of the A. Communion. He articulated the consensus of the Conference for 3 Moratoria (no to consecrations of those in same sex relationships, no to blessings of same sex unions, no to “cross border” interventions) and the Covenant process to continue, only a few made clear, that they would not be bound by them. This means, that inasmuch as there is any formal outcome of the Lambeth conference, it is orthodox, and that is not nothing.

The Indaba groups were at its core. Each day another issue was addressed, the intention being to begin with less controversial issues so that relationships were established that made discussion at least possible of the most controversial.

By the end I had to concede that  in its intention to bring us to a place of discussion of the sexuality issues, this happened.

Along the way however there was enormous concern that difficult questions were being addressed superficially.  Important thought from earlier Anglican conferences was not available to those new to this process.

The main criticism of the Indaba groups came from the Africans themselves; the essential ingredient of an African indaba was the decision at its conclusion. In a way it made me think that most African bishops assumed that the last Lambeth conference had been an Indaba itself and resolution 1:10 its conclusion. There was much frustration around this, and in a way this is the situation we still face. It is the frustration that generated Gafcon. There were times in Paul’s ministry especially in Galatians, when tough decisions had to be taken for the sake of the gospel. I can only describe my anxiety as the conference went on, as an anxiety as to whether Anglicanism can ever take those decisions, when it needs to. That is the argument for the Covenant.

But to leave that anxiety as the only testimony would be dishonouring. Was it a privilege to be present with bishops from around the world including the Global Church in Lambeth? Yes.

Was I glad to be there? Yes, even with the anxiety, and even with the absence of my brothers and sisters from Gafcon.
Because it seemed to me that the Lord had not abandoned us.

At the final communion before the blessing, a commemoration of 7 Melanesian brothers took place. They had been murdered in 2003 having gone to make peace with a brutal local warlord; there names were read out by the A/C, and  the sisters and brothers of the Melanesian Orders sang their litany of saints and martyrs as they processed to the Chapel of saints and martyrs of our time. It was an unforgettable moment.

The ecumenical visitors pleaded with us to remain in unity and truth.

There were powerful addresses from other visitors including the Chief Rabbi; the Prime Minister; even the Director of the Science Museum. Each address was a cause for thanksgiving and challenge. Each contributed to our mission and obedience.

Through all of this I believed the Lord was saying the Anglican Communion exists for mission, and its unity matters for mission.

 It matters to the church in Zimbabwe that the wider communion can intervene in deposing the Bp of Harare and bring back other bishops to try and rebuild the church. (If Zimbabwe is the yardstick for deposition, how can TEC justify its deposition of Bob Duncan?). It matters to the church in Myanmar that we are able to stand with them. This passion for mission, unity and yet truth came through powerfully in the statements issued throughout the conference, from Sudan, CNI and CSI and Pakistan, the Archbishop of the Middle East, all calling for unity in truth and each one deploring the TEC action tearing the fabric of the Communion.

The Global South at Lambeth made no secret of their commitment to the same doctrinal and ethical confession as GAFCON and in one sense the very “in your face” nature of the lobbying by campaigners against Lambeth1:10 on every day of the conference emboldened the Global South to make their position crystal clear. I wondered at an Anglican Communion led by the Province of the Sudan.

Three burdens and three pleas

A burden for the Bible.
 
The bible study group was one of the high points for of Lambeth. Exposure every day to the words of the Lord Jesus according to John was a constant calling of us to know him and follow him his way.

The Anglican communion existed in microcosm in these groups, and my joy will be to pray and continue in fellowship.

But this conviction about scripture came to me most clearly after going to a meeting I originally had no intention of attending.
It was organised to meet Gene Robinson. I agonised about going but for a variety of reasons believed I should. What surprised me was that the experience convinced me that the issue before the Communion was not the appointment of one individual, to one particular Episcopal see, in a particular province, critical though that has been and remains; but what happens to the formation of a church over several decades, by a reading of scripture which is shaped by an idealogical template which is not itself subject to scripture. It imprisons you in your culture; and that is true whether the defining issue is sexuality, or class, or tribe or caste.

I thought of the way the Bible has been studied and taught in the Church of England for a generation because of the recovery of evangelical scholarship, modelled again by this church, and continuing to bear fruit around the world through the ministry of the Langham Partnership and the Lausanne Movement. All this requires us to rethink our relationship with TEC not only in terms of Communion, but what if we love them are we going to do about the way they handle the Bible and the way they have handled it for years.

A footnote to this burden, and I think a fruit of this international scholarship, is a new catechism commended at Lambeth by the Global South; an “Anglican Catechism in Outline, a common home between us”. An example of  an evangelical Anglican doctrine of scripture working in mission.

A “burden”for mission.

I have already mentioned the impact of the honouring of the Melanesian martyrs on me at the end of the Lambeth conference.

In Jerusalem a moment of similar impact though less intensity was sharing a table at supper with two young Nigerian bishops.
They had recently been consecrated to plant churches in Muslim areas in Northern Nigeria. They had a true apostolic ministry and seemed in no way daunted by the task that awaited them!

Where is the cultural equivalent here I wondered of the bishop from Southern Sudan in my bible study group leading his people in missions from one village to the next; in these churches evangelism, helping refugees, and being instruments of reconciliation are all of a piece. The whole gospel from the whole Bible to the whole world.

A “burden” for church.

The church matters and the Anglican church matters and the evangelical church matters. Think Myanmar, Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Congo, then we see that it matters how we conduct ourselves. A leader of one of the American mega churches Willow Creek, Bill Hybels makes a famous boast that “the local church is the hope of the world”: it’s nearly right, it would be better and more biblical to say that “the global church is the hope of the world”; and part of that church we are.

In his closing address A/C  reminded us that “the global horizon of the Church matters because churches without this are always in danger of slowly surrendering to the culture around them and losing sight of their calling to challenge that culture”. And that is why the consecration of a bishop in one province whose lifestyle is lived in flat contradiction to the expressed mind of the Communion is serious. It affects mission all over the world. The same Sudanese bishop leading his churches in village missions also told us how he had been refused entry into Congo from Sudan to help refugees by border guards who on discovering he was an Anglican bishop told him he could not bring that “bad thing” into our country.

Now of course there must be listening, and the cultural context of the west is completely different from Africa and many other parts of the world; but when we say we are part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, it means at least that we do not take decisions in one part of the church that undermine our brothers and sisters in other parts. The covenant must make it clear that there have to be consequences if we do.

Three pleas

A plea for biblical conviction.

 + Wallace has called us to hear the message of Jude, calling us to keep the faith once for all delivered to the saints and to contend for that faith. Jeremiah kept the word of God before the people whether they wanted to hear it or not, and he kept speaking until judgement came. I believe we must be like Jeremiah in the Anglican communion, letting the word of God burn in our hearts because we cannot keep it in.

A plea for biblical compassion.

 A voice hardly heard at Lambeth was the voice of those with same sex attractions who believe the Lord is calling them to celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12). I am privileged to be on the Council of Reference for the True freedom Trust, established 30 years ago from the Wirral, as a pastoral and teaching ministry for those who themselves or for those with family and friends with same sex attractions are seeking to be faithful to the teaching of scripture.
Many still cannot speak freely of these things in their churches, and to this extent the challenge of TEC is well given, are we churches who truly welcome those who describe themselves as “gay”, or do we communicate a gospel that we do not believe is good news for them also.

After Lambeth, debriefing to retired clergy, I found it profoundly moving to meet the response of more than one who while fully agreeing with all that I had said, were wrestling with how to be faithful to Christ and loving to one of their children who had declared themselves as gay, some entering into civil partnerships.

Conviction is not to collude with bigotry, and compassion is not condescension.

A plea for a biblical covenant.

Whether or not a Covenant can offer a way forward in unity and truth is very much an open question; the Primates meeting if it takes place, and the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, a body given oversight of international Anglicanism, planned for next May will determine if it is to have any future and if so what kind.

Towards the end of Lambeth I think God gave me Jeremiah 15:20 which speaks of Jeremiah’s ministry as a “fortified wall of bronze”, and says of him “it is they who will turn to you, not you who will turn to them”. I realise that such an image may not endear itself to everyone as a metaphor for the church. But I think it has an application to us.

 The wall is for defence; as we seek to stand for the truth we do not need to attack. If this applies to the covenant, this has a slim enough likelihood of success without needing our attacks to destroy it.

 The wall is able to take what is thrown at it. We must withstand everything that is thrown against us from a culture that is increasingly hostile to evangelicalism, and from a church that is in danger of repeating the sins of our ancestors of those days.

This does not mean we do not speak; the wall represents Jeremiah and the church being willing to go on speaking the word of God even if that word is ignored, trusting in the Lord who will honour that speech, working his judgement and resurrection in his people and the world.
 
Now that word was given to Jeremiah as an individual; so clearly each of us must give our “yes” to it; but as we consult together, is it possible we could ask of NEAC, that as one voice we say “yes” to this calling and a “no” to our fragmentation. I pray so.

And finally; a word on EFAC. It may be that the mantle of this ministry has now passed to the Global South and GAFCON. However, I wonder while the Anglican Communion is going through a profound transition, that EFAC reconstituted may yet have a role; to be a forum which can encourage deeper study of scripture especially on matters which are contentious and divisive; to be a forum for keeping relationships across the South and North strong and Bible centred; to be a forum to ensure that evangelical truth is central to the emerging Anglican structures especially if the Covenant is to be the way forward.

I close with the scripture from Hebrews which I quoted at the end of my debrief to the diocese of Chester after GAFCON and Lambeth

“Now may the God of peace, who brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, make us complete in everything good so that we may do his will, working among us that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever Amen.” Hebrews 13:20,21.

Keith Sinclair.
Bishop’s Lodge,
Birkenhead.
 
 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.