back back to News previous previous story  |  next story next

Covenant is flawed and colonialist, says GAFCON

by Ed Beavan

Primates and bishops at the GAFCON gathering in Jerusalem, earlier this month © not advert
Response: primates and bishops at the GAFCON gathering in Jerusalem, earlier this month JOY GWALTNEY

THE GAFCON group has rejected the St Andrew’s draft text of the Anglican Covenant, describing it as “seriously limited and severely flawed”.

The draft forms the latest version of the document which is being considered by the Lambeth Conference as a means to steer the Communion through its current difficulties.

The GAFCON response comes at the same time as its reply to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s comments on GAFCON’s Jerusalem Statement (News, 4 July).

The GAFCON Theological Resource Team says the document is “defective”, “theologically incoherent” and its proposals are “unwork-able”. Their response alleges seven serious theological flaws in the draft, the first being that it does not recognise “the mischief it seeks to address”, which they describe as “a crisis of obedience to scripture . . . or apostasy”, prompted by the “determined departures from the teaching of scripture on human sexuality by the Episcopal Church [in the US] and the Anglican Church of Canada”.

They add that the draft lays out an illegitimate notion of autonomy, which can be used as a euphemism for sin; and they criticise a lack of biblical theology in the document which is “detached from the scriptural narrative of salvation and redemption from sin”.

They say that the draft contains a faulty anthropology and a lack of an eschatological perspective, with no reference to sin, judgement, or to God’s provision of a remedy in Christ.

The GAFCON authors cite a neglect of obedience to the Word of God in the draft as “one of its most serious flaws”, while the final objection is described as an “isolated and vacuous appeal to unity”, saying the document “deals almost exclusively with perceived threats to the unity of the Communion rather than moral and doctrinal error”.

In their conclusion, the conservatives also express difficulty with the legal framework set out in the draft’s appendix, and suggest the instruments of the Communion might be the focus of objection.

They are highly critical of the proposed part to be played by the Archbishop of Canterbury: “The document . . . fails to recognise the disproportionate influence of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

“The problem . . . is compounded by the lack of formal accountability on the part of the Archbishop and the prominence the document envisages for this Primate is frankly colonialist.

“Secondly, the prominence given to the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and Primates raises problems in increasing further the ability of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ACC to exercise disproportionate influence over the Primates, thereby tending in effect to silence dissentient primatial voices.”

IN RESPONSE to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s comments on the Jerusalem statement, the GAFCON Primates rebutt the implication that they claim to have a monopoly on the truth.

They write: “In no way do we believe that we are the only ones to hold a correct interpretation of scripture according to its plain meaning.

“Many are contending for and proclaiming the orthodox faith throughout the Anglican Communion. Their efforts are, however, undermined by those who are clearly pursuing a false gospel. We are not claiming to be a sinless Church. Our concern is with false teaching which justifies sin in the name of Christianity.”

On the issue of the uniqueness of Christ, the GAFCON Primates question the response of Dr Williams, who said this conviction was “not in dispute” in the worldwide Communion.

“Leading bishops in the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and even the Church of England have denied the need to evangelise among people of other faiths, promoted and attended syncretistic events, and, in some cases, refused to call Jesus Lord and Saviour.”

Responding to questions of their legitimacy and authority, they explain that clergy, laity, and bishops came together “on the basis of their confession of the common historic Christian faith”, forming a council “in obedience to the word of God to defend the faith and the faithful who were at risk in some Anglican dioceses and congregations”.

They point to the Virginia report, which notes authority in Anglicanism is not concentrated in a single centre, and say that their Council is “a first step towards bringing greater order to the Communion, both for the sake of bringing long overdue discipline and as a reforming initiative for our institutions”. They add that they respect territoriality, but that “it cannot be absolute.”

Regarding the practice of giving alternative episcopal oversight to bishops and priests who are in dispute with a diocese, they say that such cases “have been investigated thoroughly and openly with the fullest possible transparency”, providing pastoral care “only after the overseeing bishops have been fully satisfied of no moral impediments to their action”.

The response is signed by the African Primates Peter Akinola, Justice Akrofi, Emmanuel Kolini, Valentine Mokiwa, Benjamin Nzimbi, and Henry Orombi, and the Primate of the Southern Cone, Greg Venables.



back back to News up back to top previous previous story  |  next story next


© Church Times 2006 - All rights reserved

Website by Baigent