Reading the FoCA tea leaves

The lineaments of the Anglican polity of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans have become a little sharper after their London conference, though a great deal still needs to be clarified.

The fundamentals are:

1. The Jerusalem Declaration sets out both what is of God and what is truly Anglican. 
2. Consequently those who cannot or will not assent to it are neither godly nor Anglican (historic continuity is irrelevant if the path followed has departed from the ways of God).
3. Authority to determine contested issues and who may be recognised as Anglican rests with ultimately with the Primates whose provinces accord with the principles of the Jerusalem Declaration, meeting as equals.

Consequently:

1. The goal of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is to 'rescue' the Anglican Communion - from cultural relativity, from deserting the plain meaning of the Scriptures and from becoming no more than a 'movement for social betterment'.
2. In practice the rescue comprises: (a) those provinces which endorse the Jerusalem Declaration will establish their own structures of communication and decision making and (b) individuals and larger groupings within other provinces will be recognised as Anglican under (varied) structures which are overseen by those provinces which endorse the Jerusalem Declaration.
3. The Anglican Communion's 'Instruments of Unity' are 'dysfunctional' not because they don't work but because they do not serve to conform the Communion to the principles of the Jerusalem Declaration - and in particular because they are not able to 'exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy' (Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today).
4. The FoCA has no need to institute schism. They are happy to remain in communion with all faithful Anglicans. If there are those who have left the proper Anglican path to promote a 'false gospel' that is a matter of deep regret and, ultimately, of the salvation (or not) of those individuals: but it is they who have left, not faithful confessing Anglicans.

*   *   *

Archbishop Peter Jensen, key mover in the
Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans

The epistemic divide is clear. FCA members have objective criteria (both biblical and from within traditional church teaching, though the former is definitive) by which to critique both secular society and Christian praxis.

In particular history in the sense of legitimating and identity-forming narratives is replaced by salvation history: judgement by objective biblical and theological criteria. Concluding a survey of 500 years of Anglican polity the Revd Dr Ashley Null concluded,

Effectiveness in mission is the highest historic priority in Anglicanism, for the church derives its existence, purpose and power from the faithful proclamation of the gospel in word and sacrament. Because of this divine call, the church has God’s assurance of his abiding presence among his people. Nevertheless, since the church as a human institution can err, adapting the proclamation of the gospel to a specific culture can all too often lead to the culture adapting and changing the gospel to its own human idolatries. Therefore, a global fellowship is necessary to help individual national churches to discern whether a specific gospel proclamation is adapting to the culture or capitulating to it. (FCA Leaders' Conference Statement and Commitment.)

Thus historic continuity is replaced by a confessional church, as they say in their title. (A  fellowship of confessing Anglicans began as a lower case description of people who would attend or align themselves with the Global Anglican Future Conference (Jerusalem, 2008). I also guess that 'Gafcon' was unacceptable as a long term title.)

Therefore, rejecting the error of subordination to secular mores, Anglicanism has a great and godly future:

We do not need to repudiate or belittle our history, but learn from it and set ourselves now to walk humbly with our God into the future and the hope that he has planned for us. (Archbishop Wabukala, emphasis added)

There are hints that the FoCA is still in early and slightly unstable days. However there is also a clear sense that the enemy which brought the group together is now less important to its identity than its own internally generated programme. Sexuality is still significant as a shibboleth but the issue is little more than a symptom of the much deeper malaise from which the FoCA will rescue both church and society.

*   *   *

Gafcon members on the Mount of Olives, Jerusalem, 2008

In this context the focus of media commentary on the proposal that the Primates' Meeting should be chaired by an elected member for, perhaps, a 4 or 5 year term is peripheral. It is merely a statement of how the FoCA will order itself internally, drawing from inherited patterns of Anglican polity but adapting it to suit their programme.

More significant was the view that the election of the Archbishop of Canterbury was a matter for England alone. It will be the leaders of the FoCA who decide whether or not to accept him as part of the Fellowship: no-one is acceptable (i.e. godly and Anglican) merely by virtue of their office.

*   *   *

Therefore there will be no schism in the sense of one organization separating itself out from another on a certain day, followed immediately by either or both bodies setting up new structures and legal identities.

Instead there will be a steady continued tearing of the fabric as distinct ecclesial units (parishes, dioceses and provinces as well as individuals) align themselves explicitly with the FoCA. The legalities will depend on the law of each country (property and pensions being governed by secular law) and on the ecclesiastical structure of each Church.

I anticipate that the FoCA churches will thrive, purposeful and enthusiastic for at least the medium-term foreseeable future. It will thus be self-legitimating.

On the other hand I guess the remaining churches will flounder for a while before accepting the reality that there will be no accommodation between the two Anglican entities. Then they too will revise their own relationships, structures and communications and will settle into the new geography of Anglicanism where, in most places, there will be one dominant Anglican Church and a minority owing allegiance to its mirror image.

I don't think who is appointed as Archbishop of Canterbury will make much difference to this process - except, perhaps, to the timing.

A kicking on the Covenant

The English General Synod, from the Daily Telegraph

General Synod's vote on the Covenant was certainly a kicking for those of us who oppose it.

I was out of radio contact all day so I haven't been able to hear or read any of the detail.  

However my instinct is not to think that the great majority of Synod members have read and considered the issues and on that basis have come to a considered judgement in its favour.  

The Covenant has always been a minority interest, this is a new Synod, and the general rule is that things, even threats, that are far away (in geography or time) seldom give people cause for concern.  The campaign to oppose it was, I think, as good as we could have managed given that we started very late.  (The No Anglican Covenant press release.)

I am afraid my initial suspicion is that General Synod will (almost) inevitably acceded to any proposal strongly led by senior bishops and the Archbishops.  And a flaccid, compliant legislature cannot be good for any aspect of the Church.  

But what about GAFCON?

However, from the other end of the theological spectrum, the news that the GAFCON leaders reject the Covenant is very interesting.  It's not a surprise, and the timing of their announcement was intended as a grenade lobbed towards the Archbishop, though it didn't explode. The emphasis on a Covenant as the way forward for unity in the Communion has generated a predictable but unintended consequence: a different Covenant (the Jerusalem Declaration) can be the basis for a different Anglicanism.

As I read the statement the GAFCON leaders are asserting that, led by God, they will no longer be part of the future of the Anglican Communion as lead by the Archbishop of Canterbury - not the Primates' Meeting and not the Covenant.  In fact,

3. We believe that we are now entering a new era for the Anglican Communion. 

4. As we have made clear in numerous communiqués and meetings those who have abandoned the historic teaching of the Church have torn the fabric of our life together at its deepest level. We have made repeated attempts to bring repentance and restoration and yet these efforts have been rejected. We grieve for those who have walked apart and earnestly pray for them and the people under their care.

5. For the sake of Christ and of His Gospel we can no longer maintain the illusion of normalcy 

From Enough About Me: An Autobiography

9. We are, however, determined to lead our churches away from unhealthy economic dependency and to teach our people the importance of becoming effective stewards of their own resources. We must reclaim a vision of financial self-sufficiency.

11. We remain convinced that the unique character of GAFCON/FCA with its diversity of cultures and its embrace of the Jerusalem Declaration as a common theological confession is a vital contribution to the future of the global Anglican Communion. [I.e. without churches which have " 'bowed the knee' to secular liberalism".]

The glacially slow schism has taken another step forward.  I believe it's now irrevocable.

Which raises a question for the rest of us: What is the point of the Covenant without 8 (or more) of 39 Provinces? Why is it still important? Who will it be important to?