The recent GAFCON statement has my head twirling a bit.
I am not sure what this will mean for Anglicanism, but I am a bit concerned. I share some of the concerns that Archishop Williams and Bishop Wright, as well as others, have voiced (see some responses to GAFCON here).
Anglicanism has always had great diversity, and while I agree that communion needs to be broken with classic liberals, I worry that this is not just Anglican-style schism. One of the most beautiful things about Anglicanism is that it is quite diverse. Now I realize there are limits to this diversity, but I wonder where the limits will be drawn. I don’t want Anglicanism to become another evangelical denomination. Evangelicalism is just one strain of Anglicanism, and while in many ways, I am in that strain, I find much of benefit in the Anglo-Catholic and latitudinarian strains.
I often find myself agreeing more with Jim Wallis than with Os Guinness. Will that mean that I will be labeled as a liberal within the new regime because I am more liberal in the areas of economics, the environment, and politics? I find myself agreeing more with the sacramentality of Schmemann, Waterland, and even Pusey than with Stott. Will I be labeled as a Catholic? (Catholics seem to be tolerated, and if you’re in San Joaquin, slightly lauded, but how long will that last?)
My reading of the Scriptures often has me agreeing more with liberals than with evangelicals when it comes to the way of Jesus. How much latitude will there be to follow the Scriptures wherever they go–even when that leads away from evangelicalism?
I am finding it increasingly more difficult for my faith to have a home.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Rick, I appreciated your post and am aware of the concerns you share are also felt by many others in the Anglican Communion. Just a couple of thoughts of my own:
First, ++Rowan Williams did not express concern so much for the theology present in the document but rather for the structure that will be developed. The theology is classical Anglican thought. The boundaries are broad.
Second, Anglo-Catholics were well represented at GAFCON and the major players in that stream all enthusiastically supported the final document (as did the Charismatics and Evangelicals present).
Finally, not sure why you think your views “in the areas of economics, the environment, and politics” would be an issue as none of those issues were discussed or addressed by the document. I talked to several folks in Jerusalem who share a variety of views on the subjects you mentioned.
Anxious to talk to you more about the results of GAFCON. Blessings,
Jerry+
July 5th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Fr. Jerry,
I am hopeful this is the case, and as you were there, I am going to take your word on that. My concern is rooted in that I’ve been around a lot of Anglican evangelicals that have little tolerance for anything other than right-wing Republican evangelicalism.
I am hoping my Louisiana bishop and canon (who were both there) will give their impressions as they are both TEC and Anglo-Catholic and were also in attendance.
I guess I’ve just seen how polity used to “root out heresy” can often go too far. I’m just not sure what the implications will be.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
I think this statement by Bishop Wright gets to the heart of my concerns:
“Who will elucidate the relationship between the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer, on the one hand, and the 14 Articles of GAFCON on the other, and by what means? It is precisely questions like these, within the larger Anglican world, which have proved so problematic in the last five years, and the ‘Declaration’ is actually a strange document which doesn’t help us address them. Many at GAFCON may think the answers will be obvious; in some clear-cut cases they may be. But there will be many other cases where they will not. It is precisely because I share the officially stated aims of GAFCON that I am extremely concerned about these proposals…”
In addition, I think I am afraid of another AMiA, to be honest…