GAFCON: Why Wright is Wrong and Rodgers is Right

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
7/10/2008

Two very distinct and contrary views of the recent Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) have emerged following the Jerusalem gathering where some 1,200 world class Anglican leaders from 38 countries, including more than 300 bishops met to contemplate the crisis in the Anglican Communion.

The first view is from former seminary dean and now a Bishop with the Anglican Missions in the Americas (AMiA), John H. Rodgers Jr. He was present at the gathering and observed the conference first-hand. Rodgers is reformed and evangelical in his thinking.

The second view is held by a leading Church of England bishop, the Rev. Dr. N.T. (Tom) Wright (fourth in line to the See of Canterbury), a successful author, who also describes himself as an evangelical. As the Bishop of Durham he is possibly the most visible prelate in the C of E outside the present incumbent of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams. Wright was not present at GAFCON.

Their views on what happened at GAFCON in Jerusalem are poles apart presenting a dilemma for evangelical Anglicans everywhere. One may wonder why two men who are theologically so close could disagree so violently over what took place. Both have access to the same documents, though Wright was not there to experience the Spirit-filled worship that characterized much of the conference.

Both men are solidly Anglicans. Both agree on the necessity of salvation by grace through faith alone in the finished work of Christ, (although Wright has modified his views on St. Paul). Wright belongs to the Mother Church and is much more of an institutionalist than Rodgers who sees the church as both reformed and reforming. Rodgers was one the first theologians in The Episcopal Church to realize that TEC had seriously compromised itself on basic doctrinal and moral issues and early on issued a call for reform of the institution - a call that fell on deaf ears.

Rodgers opening point is that what is at stake is "the precious inheritance of Apostolic Christianity". He further says, quite bluntly, "portions of the Anglican Communion are no longer faithful to that inheritance and that the Communion's instruments of unity and oversight have not proven capable to protect and advance this gift and calling."

In his opening salvo, Wright agrees that there are indeed "new problems (secularism, pluralism, the decline of modernity with nothing to put in its place, and much else) and that this means a great, fresh opportunity for the gospel." He goes further to admit, "I have found myself involved in the troubled situation of our Communion following the disastrous events of 2003. I have grieved at the muddled teaching which has allowed all kinds of confusions about Christian doctrine, behaviour and even the nature of Anglicanism to abound, with disastrous consequences."

So far, so good.

Rodgers picks up the pace. He notes that as the Anglican family expanded around the Globe, five abiding marks of faithful Anglicanism arose. These are: 1, a common faith, 2, a common celebration of the Word and the sacraments of the Gospel, 3, a common ministry, 4, a common mission and 5, a common global family or communion. He goes on to say that faithful Anglicanism is above all biblical. Canon A5 of the Church of England states: "The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal."

Rodgers lays an historical foundation for his views, but he is clear that Anglicans are, in principle, open to diverse forms of worship "provided that the Faith be kept entire".

He then rips those provinces where permission is given for congregations to construct their own liturgical services even to rewriting the creeds. These services and creeds can, and some do, embody theological content that contradicts the Scripture and the Anglican Faith. In many places, the Faith has certainly not been "kept entire", he says.

For his part, Wright says that "part of the genius of Anglicanism has been to be reformed by the gospel but always ready for fresh reformations by that same gospel: to recognise that God has more light to break out of his holy word, and that this may lead us to do things in new ways, sometimes setting us free from tired structures and sometimes creating new structures for new gospel purposes. That is precisely what Windsor is proposing, and what Lambeth will be pursuing."

Rodgers: "While Anglicans have at different times been more or less energetic in carrying out this mission, there has never been any doubt as to our calling to be active in the Great Commission to take the Gospel to all and to seek to draw all people to Christ.

"In recent days, however, this global mission has been denied. Some have replaced "making disciples" with the millennium goals, which are at best the outflow of the Gospel and not its replacement. These and others have also held that Christ is not "the way, the truth and the life" but rather "a way, a truth and a life", thereby denouncing the Mission as "putting God in a box" and as an "imperialistic, imposition of our religion on peoples who already have a religion".

"Against these false tendencies in our Communion we need to clearly assert that the Great Commission lies at the heart of who we are as Anglicans and to see that we give mission high priority in our life and witness. It is too light a thing that we should be orthodox in theology and maintenance-minded in practice, as has sometimes been the case."

Wright: "I and my colleagues in this diocese, like so many others, share exactly in the sense that we are a fellowship 'confessing the faith of Christ crucified, standing firm for the gospel in the global and Anglican context', sharing too the goal 'to reform, heal and revitalise the Anglican Communion and expand its mission to the world' and 'to give clear and certain witness to Jesus Christ'. For this reason, I know that the GAFCON leaders can't have intended to imply (as a 'suspicious' reading of their text might suggest) that they are the only ones who really believe all this, that they and they alone care about such things. The rest of us, no doubt - including several of us who were not invited to GAFCON - are eager to share in any fresh movements of the Spirit that are going ahead."

Rodgers: "Here we have our greatest challenge. Some provinces and dioceses in the Anglican Communion have departed from the plain teaching of Scriptures, the common Faith of the Communion and the express resolutions of Lambeth 1998. This has stretched if not torn the fabric of the Communion.

"This departure from the Faith has taken place in popular, pervasive teaching and practice and also in official actions such as, in the Episcopal Church, the dioceses' negative official response to Lambeth 1998 resolution 1:10, the decision of the judges in the Righter Trial to ban an appeal to the clear teaching of Scripture, and the extension of full resources of the Church to couples living together while not being married, extended at the General Convention in 2003, with no call to repentance. Therefore beginning in the 1980's we have had whole congregations leaving revisionist dioceses, while wishing to remain in the Anglican Communion and seeking for a way to do that. As the revisionism grew worse the departures increased and individuals were leaving in large numbers. It was to meet this situation that the consecrations in January of 2000 and subsequent consecrations took place. We have now proceeded to a point where we have entire orthodox dioceses and many congregations seeking to leave such provinces."

Wright: "GAFCON was a great celebration of the gospel of the love and transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The church needs this energy and vision. But this doesn't mean the GAFCON proposals can be accepted without question. The proposed 'Primates' Council' is a strange body, just as the 'Declaration' is an odd document which leaves many ambiguities. It gives far too many hostages to fortune, inviting us to trust an unformed and unaccountable body to make major decisions and giving licence to all kinds of unhelpful activities. It isn't so much that GAFCON should invite people to sign up to its blank cheque. Rather, GAFCON itself should be invited to bring its Christian vision and exuberance to the larger party where the rest of us are working for the same gospel, the same biblical wisdom, the same Lord."

Here we see a parting of the ways.

Wright believes the present structures can be revitalized and it is sheer arrogance on the part of these Africans to say otherwise, even though the center of Anglican gravity has clearly moved from Lambeth to Abuja.

Here Wright blunders badly showing his provincialism and ignorance when he says that GAFCON should bring its vision and exuberance to the "larger party."

He is dead wrong. That has been tried and failed. The U.S. and Canadian Anglican churches don't want orthodox believers. They believe the Orthodox are narrow-minded, lack inclusivity on sexuality issues, inhibit diversity, are fundamentalist, homophobic and demand full acceptance of everybody without the need for change. In other words, come as you are, stay as you are. The "larger party" doesn't want THEM. The only reason they are tolerated is because Evangelicals have large congregations that provide the financial base for liberal dioceses! But that door is fast closing as large cardinal parishes leave taking their financial base of support with them and sometimes leaving properties behind. Furthermore, liberal bishops know they have the majority of priests and laity on their side and can outvote minority orthodox clergy on every issue.

The orthodox have no future in North America and increasingly so in England in their provinces. The recent birth of the rival Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) is a case in point. Wright is either willfully ignorant of these facts or is turning a blind eye to the real state of affairs that prevails in North America. This week's Synod vote on women bishops should be a wake-up call as to the future of orthodox priests in the C of E. Evangelicals will be next when the cry for total sexual inclusivity rears its ugly head.

The "gospel" of Mrs. Jefferts Schori is totally unacceptable to evangelicals and Wright should know better. Either he is totally ignorant of what has been going on, or deliberately refuses to see who and what Mrs. Jefferts Schori and the liberal dominated HOB affirms and has become. She and they have no intention, now or ever, of suddenly becoming orthodox because Bishop Bob Duncan says so. In fact, she wants him out of the church and has tried unsuccessfully once to get rid of him. (She may yet succeed if Duncan attempts to take his diocese out of TEC).

Says Wright: "If GAFCON is to join up with the great majority of faithful, joyful Anglicans around the world, rather than to invite them to leave their present allegiance and sign up to a movement which is as yet - to put it mildly - strange in form and uncertain in destination, it is not so much that GAFCON needs to invite others to sign up and join in. Bishops, clergy and congregations should think very carefully before taking such a step, which will have enormous and confusing consequences. Rather, GAFCON itself needs to bring its rich experience and gospel-driven exuberance to the larger party where the rest of us are working day and night for the same gospel, the same biblical wisdom, the same Lord."

Wright doesn't get it. Of the Anglican Communion's 55 million (these are actually practicing Anglicans, not the additional 24 million claimed by the Church of England), 40 million were represented in Jerusalem making up nearly 75% of the entire Anglican Communion! Only 15 million Anglicans will be represented by 600 bishops at Lambeth next week.

So who represents the majority of Anglicans worldwide if it is not GAFCON? If GAFCON is the "larger party", it is up to the liberals to change, not them!

Writes Rodgers: "Several dioceses and a goodly number of clergy and congregations have already left or are about to leave in order to come under other Primates and to be accepted as members of those "overseas" provinces. All of this has taken place, after long and various unsuccessful attempts to work within the normal structures to call the Church back to faithful Anglicism. Such attempts failed because the present structures of the Anglican Communion do not have sufficient authority to act, or are unwilling to exercise the authority they do have to discipline the errant "autonomous provinces" or because the provinces themselves have gone astray and are oppressing the faithful Anglicans. This has resulted in a messy, piecemeal realignment in the Communion."

This is what Wright steadfastly refuses to recognize.

He either doesn't see what Jack Spong's teaching has done over the last 30 years to the Episcopal Church, the pathological hatred of orthodoxy by liberal and revisionist bishops or what Michael Ingham is presently doing in the Diocese of New Westminster. Furthermore, he hasn't been listening to what Archbishop Gregory Venables (a Brit in Buenos Aires) or J. I. Packer have been saying about North American Anglicanism which means he is either willfully blind, deaf and dumb or just plain stupid. Why won't Wright engage Packer in a debate over why the ABC should resign? Such clarity would hurt no one.

Those who know him say Wright is brilliant and knows what is going on, but because he was not invited to the evangelical (GAFCON) party his nose is out of joint so he is ripping back at them and using a liberal evangelical Anglican blog - Fulcrum - to do so!

Wright says he wants the spiritual energy of GAFCON to be brought to the forum "where we badly need it...in the existing central councils of the Anglican Communion."

The truth is that they, the existing councils like the Anglican Communion Office, don't want to hear that message. They are bought and paid for by The Episcopal Church. TEC will change its direction when hell freezes over, which means never!

Rodgers: "Since these revisionist provinces remain part of the Anglican Communion, we are compelled to address the question of the nature of the unity of faithful, orthodox Anglicans in relation to the nature, faithfulness and unity of the Anglican Communion itself."

Rodgers is right. The Archbishop of Canterbury has seriously compromised himself for his woolly thinking on a lot of issues ranging from Sharia Law to homosexuality. The long and short of it is, Evangelicals don't trust him. The Archbishop of York John Sentamu is viewed as an Oreo (black on the outside, white on the inside) leader and is not trusted by the Global South or by British evangelicals. He is, above all, an establishment man, through and through.

Witness then the appearance at GAFCON of the Bishop of Rochester, Dr. Michael Nazir-Ali. He was greeted with wild applause by the thousand plus evangelicals there. And why? Because he sees with tremendous clarity what is happening in the Church of England and says so. As a result, his own life and those of his family have been threatened. He has received little or no support from Dr. Williams, even though Williams happily blasts phony reports about homophobia in Nigeria!!! Nazir-Ali (he should have been ABC) is a rock solid evangelical. He has angered liberals and evangelical fence sitting Church of England bishops because of his clear witness to the gospel. He is prepared to put evangelism ahead of the Establishment and call a spade a spade.

Wright does not understand that TEC's mission (Millennium Development Goals,) and GAFCON's call for The Great Commission are at polar opposites. They are not even remotely on the same page.

The bottom line is that you cannot pour new wine into old wineskins which is what Wright is asking GAFCON to do. It simply can't be done. The old wineskins are broken. The new wine of GAFCON can only be poured into new wineskins because the integrity of the gospel demands it.

Rodgers nails it: "Evangelicals cannot remain under heretical oversight they must be willing to cross institutional boundaries to protect and rescue faithful believers who are being persecuted by heretical bishops and primates for their Anglican Faith, while being driven from their congregational settings. This principle is biblical, patristic and Anglican. It is biblical because false teachers or heretical leaders are to be cast out of the Church. (See Galatians passim) and realignment is the only way a faithful minority under oppression can find safety and call upon the faithful members of the Anglican Communion to cast out such false teachers."

The sleeping giant of Anglican Evangelicalism has finally awakened. One can only hope and pray that the blinders will be lifted from Wright's eyes before it is too late.

END