THE DANGER of GAFCON is that the rhetoric — “the Communion’s finished” — could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some of the organisers actually seem to want a Lambeth Conference robbed of lively, orthodox bishops from around the world, so that they can point to the results and say: “There you are: told you so.”
If, instead, such bishops come, bringing their cheerful worship, their deep understanding of scripture, and their wide experience of mission among the world’s poorest, this could be a great moment of renewal. Dr Williams has made it clear that Windsor and the Covenant are the tools with which to forge our future. “Orthodox” bishops should celebrate that, and join in the task.
Our Communion has for the past five years been living through 2 Corinthians: the challenge to re-establish an authority based on the gospel alone and embodied in human weakness. Inevitably, “super-apostles” then emerge, declaring that such theology is for wimps.
To them I would say: Are they Evangelicals? So am I. Are they orthodox? So am I. Do they believe in the authority of scripture? So do I (including the bits they regularly downplay). Are they keen on mission? So am I, and on the full mission of God’s kingdom which an older Evangelicalism often ignores.
Those who want to be biblical should ponder what the Bible itself says about such things. There are many in the GAFCON movement whom I admire and long to see at Lambeth, but the movement itself is deeply flawed. It does not hold the moral, biblical, or Evangelical high ground.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Wright on GAFCON
I came across this article and found it interesting. I'd encourage you to read the whole thing, it's well worth the time. Here is an excerpt:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Yes, another example of Tom writing rather hastily I am afraid, against those whose tactics differ from his. I am quite unclear as to what his charge about morality at the end actually means.
It seems to me he's just calling bad tactics bad tactics. Is there any harm in that? What part is hastily written?
I think the charge about morality is simply an assertion that orthodox bishops can go to Lambeth and not GAFCON. If you hold to the authority of scripture, you aren't obligated to head to Israel.
Does +Wright care enough about truth to insist on church discipline? No, he doesn't.
Is he an accomplice in stringing along the orthodox? Yes, he is.
wannabe anglican, what is your assertion that +Wright doesn't care about truth or believe in church disipline based on? That seems a rather grand indictment backed up by a lack of evidence. He is, afterall, an author of the Windsor report and a critic of TEC. Just because he doesn't want to adopt the GAFCON mold doesn't mean he doesn't care about truth or the church.
Wannabe, I think Wright, like Dr. Williams, cares enough about church unity not to sacrifice it on the altar of "discipline." What do you propose to "discipline" Bishop Robinson or Presiding Bishop Schorri (I'm assuming the usual suspects are the targets here)? And most importantly, how can this be done without destroying the Communion?
He's not calling bad tactics bad tactics: he is condemning GAFCON for being immoral and schismatic, which it plainly isn't, if he'd bothered to ask, which he didn't. And he casts himself in the role of the apostle Paul!
Michael, I'm not sure if we read the same article. I'm fairly certain that the bishop know he isn't Paul.
On the other issue, he isn't condemning GAFCON for being immoral. Read closer. He's saying that GAFCON can't claim to have a monopoly on orthodoxy and on morality and shouldn't operate as if it did. That's a very separate issue.
'the movement is deeply flawed...'
Sounds pretty strong condemnation to me.
I know he doesn't literally think he is Paul!
"Deeply flawed" doesn't mean immoral, it means bad tactics. Wright seeks many of the same goals as the GAFCON bishops, but doesn't believe in the GAFCON method. That's an issue of tactics, not goals or morality.
You should hear Wright's terrible and sour rant against Gafcon on the radio. It is a strange and inaccurate anger... and one wonders whether he has actually read the same documents.
Post a Comment