On from GAFCON

I’m minded to sign-up my support of the GAFCON statement and encourage our PCC to do the same. Maybe its even worth presenting a motion to the deanery synod.

I’m surprised that only about 570 people have signed up so far whereas about 800 people were at the meeting at All Souls’ Langham Place last week where we were encouraged to do so. If you haven’t signed, why not?

[Update: its over 800 now, 8/07; Over 1000 now, 10/07]

One could waste a great deal of time on all this, and I shall probably reveal my ignorance in what follows, (which partly arises out of reading the Bishop of Durham’s comments here) but I’d welcome any comments or corrections.

Archbishop

It seems to me uncontroversial to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not necessarily essential to that which unifies the Anglican Communion. Above all else, Anglicanism must be defined by faithfulness to the doctrine of Scripture, which is set forth in the Catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bare witness. There are historical and liturgical links that are more important than how one treats or is treated by the Archbishop.

There might be some millage in distinguishing the Archbishop as a man and the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Even if the current Archbishop were a false-teaching apostate who excommunicated and was excommunicated by the faithful, Anglicans could still be recognised as those with a link (official / historical) to the see of Canterbury. They might even be willing to make some kind of declaration of constitutional obedience to the Archbishop and promise to follow his godly admonitions in all things lawful and honest even if they disagreed with him about all sorts of things or even thought he ought not to have the top job.

Primate’s Council

I can see that the formation of a GAFCON Primates’ Council is more difficult. Critics have claimed that it is self-appointed and unaccountable.

Maybe a meeting of all the primates would be better? Who could call such a meeting and determine its agenda? Would the orthodox be in a majority? Has it been tried? Could it be effective?

Maybe the proposed primates’ council should be open to all primates?

If all the primates can’t or wont act together for the sake of the truth then it does seem to me that the orthodox primates (and maybe others with them) need to find new ways of acting for the sake of the faithful whose diocesan bishops have departed from the biblical gospel and orthopraxy.

At some point if we find ourselves without political power within the present structures such that we cannot change them and are unable to be faithful through them we would have to start something new. It seems to me that a number of the primates believe themselves to be in this position and are therefore justified in acting in a new way.

It seems to me that those who want to criticise the conservative primates for innovating need to remember that they are extremely senior and properly appointed leaders who represent a great many faithful Anglicans. They are acting in response to a pressing need where the revisionists have abandoned the gospel. To slate Archbishops for crossing boundaries while doing nothing about those who abandon the gospel would be straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. If there are concerns about what such a council might do in the future, one would have to ask what the alternatives are. It seems that it wouldn’t be a bad move to trust the judgement of these primates.

Does anyone know where we can see a list of the primates who have thus far signed up to the GAFCON council?

Maybe, please God, the Lambeth Conference and the Windsor process will sort it all out, but I doubt it. If these are not effective, when will enough be enough and will it be right for the faithful to do something?

Would the Lambeth conference be any different if all the conservatives attended, one wonders?