Tom Wright expands on his GAFCON comments here
It was a shrewd move by the organisers to get him there: for many older English evangelicals, with long memories of listening to John Stott and Jim Packer in conferences at All Souls, it will have stirred recollections of happier days. And now to discover that our great Jim Packer is being persecuted by a wicked liberal bishop in Canada – well, clearly it’s time to man the barricades! Why can’t the Anglican Communion do something to help this wonderful man?
J. I. Packer may be getting on a bit, but the notion that he would allow himself to be manipulated in this way is a bit bizarre.
That is the very question I have asked myself – not only in relation to Jim Packer faced with the Diocese of New Westminster (i.e. Vancouver), but in relation to many of my close friends in various dire situations in the United States and in other parts of Canada as well. I want to assure such friends, many of whom are in regular email correspondence with me, that nothing I have said takes away at all from my strong and consistent support for them, my prayers for them, my desire that a solution be found to the appalling situation that so many have faced, AND (please note) a lot of hard work, necessarily behind the scenes, on their behalf. It is simply untrue to suggest that I and others have done nothing to help the beleaguered orthodox in America; I call to witness the vitriol I have received from revisionist journalists on several occasions over the last few years! I have taught and lectured in the USA many times over many years (to the point where some of my detractors sneer at me for it).
Surely that’s what GAFCON is: a solution to liberal revisionism. Oh, right, it is not made in England. The distinct whiff of self-justification I detect here tends to permeate the whole article.
The problem is that GAFCON is addressing (at least) three quite different issues:
a. The real, substantial and scandalous situation in the USA and Canada;
b. The African sense that it’s time for leadership to come from black Africa rather than white N Atlantic;
c. The belief among a VERY SMALL group of hard-line right-wing English evangelicals (including in Sydney, Australia) that they are called to take over the C of E by aggressive planting of new churches under the nose even of existing evangelical churches and bishops, and insisting that they are the only real ‘evangelicals’, that they alone are true to scripture.What is happening is that the Archbishop of Sydney, and his English colleagues, are using the fact of (a) and the energy of (b) to advance their agenda on (c). I am objecting as strongly as I can to (c) since I believe it to be doctrinally and pastorally unwarranted and extremely dangerous even in the short and medium term, let alone in the long. These objections have nothing whatever to do with compromising the gospel or the ethical teaching of scripture.
I just don’t get it: why would anyone object to (c) – planting biblically orthodox churches regardless of territory – unless the good old CofE can’t cope with competition (after all, they are expanding and church planting themselves so rapidly *ahem*). Tom Wright really does seem to be more concerned about hierarchy than spreading the gospel.
The article goes on to try and justify Rowan’s inaction and why GAFCON is not right for everyone – particularly Britain. It is worth a read.
I find myself with a lot less respect for Tom Wright than I used to have. There is the same passive-aggressive attitute I have seen from Ephraim Radner and other folks at the ACI, together with a very unfortunate colonial attitute (and as a Brit I think I can call it as it is). He’s laying it on a bit thick – a good solution for the (sniff) yanks and canucks, possibly works for the (another sniff) africans, but not (shudder) something that could touch us here, in God’s own country.
I think one can judge by the amount of time and the attitude by which he is attacking Gafcon, that we should indeed take Gafcon seriously. After all, you would expect this kind of response from an institution when that institution is under threat.
Bishop Tom seems to spend a lot of time attempting to differentiate the UK from elsewhere. In some senses he is right – the UK is different culturally and is probably not as far down the road as the US and Canada. However, ‘he doth protest too much, methinks’ – the problems are not so radically different in the UK as elsewhere.
I wonder sometimes whether this kind of outburst does have as a driving force the fear of irrelevancy, of losing ‘power’ and ‘recognition’?
What jumped out at me was,
It is either naive or disingenuous to paint this as a geographic issue. The issue is the defense of the truths of the Christian faith. “White N Atlantic” is rapidly demonstrating itself incapable or unwilling of doing so. Leadership, therefore, MUST come from elsewhere… somewhere… anywhere!
Given opportunity, NT Wright would likely recommend to the Apostle Paul that he seriously consider a rewrite of Phil 1:12-18.
I have read Wright’s concerns as questioning where the global authority of the GAFCON Primates comes from. He seems to be criticizing an institution that says ‘If you don’t believe what we believe, you’re just not conservative enough.’
He probably *does* have a certain vested interest in maintaining the Canterbury institution, but does that make his criticisms all wrong? Or is he just *not conservative enough* for the Essentials Network?
Good job.
Still in the Closet,
but does that make his criticisms all wrong?
No, but he doesn’t really offer any rational criticism as far as I can see. Part of the flavour of what he says about GAFCON seems to be that of a person who is recoiling from the chaos of new life and retreating into the calm of the familiar – which may not work very well, but at least he understands it.
The difficulty is, NTW does not – and has not – offered any other solution to the problem of apostasy which is rampant in North America and, imho, is poised to devour orthodox Anglicanism in the UK too. History will be the final arbiter of whether GAFCON is a Good Thing, but NTW is not even willing to give it a chance and he is not able to offer a plausible alternative.
5. Still in the Closet
I was pleased to read your post. It raises important issues that we need to think about.
We haven’t just materialized at this point in time. Those that are faithful to traditional Anglicanism have been trying for a decade to draw the liberal end of the Anglican Communion back into the fold. TEC and ACoC have both chosen another path which many of us view as apostasy. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, Wright seems to believe the fairy tale that the wayward provinces can be re-integrated.
Canterbury could have at least slowed the split, but chose to nuance his office into irrelevance.
With respect to the authority of GAFCON, is that really an issue? Neither TEC nor ACoC will recognize GAFCON, nor is their recognition required for a group of like-minded Christians to support each other’s ministries.
Although we at times all tend to characterize the debate in terms of conservative/liberal (right Charles?), that’s incorrect. Essentials believes in the scripture, the creeds, the foundational documents of the church and two thousand years of church tradition. I strongly characterize this as being faithful Anglicans. In order for the liberals to follow their new path, they need to deny significant elements of scripture, the creeds and tradition -characterize that how you will.
Wright has quite correctly been defended by many as having done fine evangelism in the past. Unfortunately time has passed him by. We are dealing with two provinces that outright lie about their compliance to Windsor. He needs to realize that the time has come when there will be a cost to discipleship. In his case, I suspect that the first payment will be a loss of the comfortable collegiality he has operated in.
Peace,
Jim
My Rector and I were having a discussion about Bishop Wright on the weekend. He held to the position that Bishop Wright was a great Evangelical thinker and writer. My response was that I didn’t care what he had been in the past – it was clear to me that he had become an apologist for the current revisionist movement. Every word out of Tom Wright’s mouth reinforces my belief that I am correct in my assessment.
It’s two years since I left England, but when I did, the largest group in General Synod was Evangelicals (the split is roughly 1/3 each of Evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics and Liberals). A few years previously, there was an outcry from the pews when a celibate, gay priest (and therefore one who was living WITHIN the guidelines of the C of E) was nominated to a suffragan bishopric (he had to withdraw). Wright has a point: the Church of England is nowhere near as liberal as the ACC and simply doesn’t have the same problems.
Not having read NT Wright, I won’t criticize his theology. Although I suspect I would disagree with his view on justification, there may be much that I would agree with. His timing, however, stinks. Were he on record from 15-20 years ago as saying that the situation with the North American church was becoming scandalous, he would have some credibility (if he is on record as saying this, I will eat my words). He frittered away a potentially beneficial use of his influence by waiting until it was far too late to speak out. He may be one of the best communicators on the planet, but he does not appear to have been given the gift of prophecy. Moses and Joshua let their positions be known early on in their careers, even though it did not seem to produce any positive results at the time.
9 Warren:
‘He may be one of the best communicators on the planet, but he does not appear to have been given the gift of prophecy.’
Perhaps I’m reading too cynically, but does *not* having the gift of prophecy make him a bad bishop? Note that I’m not accusing you personally of implying as much, but I worry that there are a lot of folks in the Essentials camp who might say ‘Yes.’ There’s something slightly worrying if your only choice is between being a prophet or being a revisionist.
#10,
Perish the thought of my speaking for Warren – I should probably let him speak for me – but, I took the prophecy remark as somewhat tongue in cheek. NTW did not need the gift of prophecy to see this coming; or to put it another way, ‘you don’t need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows’. Yes, my roots are in the ’60s.
SITC (#10), the gift of prophecy is not a prerequisite for the role of overseer/elder (1 Tim 3 and Tit 1); nor do I think I suggested it was. Because of his prowess as a theologian, some people might assume that God has given NT Wright special insight into His will for His church. I would suggest that the two don’t automatically go hand in hand.
I think you read more into my comment than was there – or I didn’t express myself clearly (which is more likely). It is a pitfall of blog-based communication. Comments are rarely written based on careful thought and consideration; and they probably aren’t read carefully either. I’m guilty of both.
David (#11), I should probably let people speak for me more often. It might keep me out of trouble.
12 Warren:
No, no. I wasn’t intending to read more into your comment than necessary. My beef is not with you, but rather with those who overplay the emphasis on prophecy in today’s church. Yes, we need strong prophetic voices now more than ever. But I don’t think *not* being a prophet is necessarily a failing.
If Wright asks where these GAFCON primates get off thinking that they have a monopoly on biblical orthodoxy, can’t anyone answer him? By whose authority do they do these things? Would it not make more sense to wait for Lambeth to fail (if you believe it will) than to take actions that could be construed as sabotaging Lambeth?
As so often happens, it may be that the theology is getting obscured by the politics.
#13,
If Wright asks where these GAFCON primates get off thinking that they have a monopoly on biblical orthodoxy, can’t anyone answer him?
Perhaps no-one has answered because it is such a daft question. The attempt at maintaining a monopoly is coming more from NTW than GAFCON: NTW wants to prevent GAFCON from invading the UK and is desperate to maintain the CofE monopoly. I am sure GAFCON would welcome anyone who preaches the gospel – on anyone’s turf; the more the merrier. Chaotic, perhaps, but in no way a monopoly. What GAFCON does stand against is preaching a false gospel.
Could we step back and look at the whole picture of the family quarrel. The erosion of our sacred trust of proclaiming “the faith once and for all delivered to the saints”, began several decades ago. The trauma suffered by the faithful had no balm. The recourse for resolution, well-meaning processes put in place, never materialized. Flagrant deviation and the minimising of the faithful brought about disenfranchisement of the Conservative Orthodox. Every support leaned heavily towards those who would re-interpret the Holy Word. Help expected of the elder brother never materialized.
Such an impasse could not perpetuate. All logic would dictate that something had to break. It did.
GAFCON happened. It had to happen. Praise God! A balm, a healing.
The elder brother has been found partisan, and so told. Now a sibling rises up in defence of him.
Our prayers, that trust will be put where trust is due, even in the will of the Father, through Jesus in the anointing of the Holy Spirit.
Those born in the Spirit, are to come before the Father even as little children. May our leadership come before Him, who is Omniscient, in the purity, simplicity and humility of little children.
Irene (#15), wise words well phrased.
In my post above, I should have said “Maya (#15)”. I have no idea why I wrote “Irene”. I’m probably flipping back and forth between threads too quickly.
17 Warren,
You are not losing your marbles, there was a little identity change at Irene’s request.
Although this thread may have gone a little stale, there was a remark on another Blog that was intriguing about Wright. Wright was able to write two lengthy papers attacking GAFCON in very short order, but nothing on the WO debacle in his precious CoE.
In fact, he got up and moved a motion and got killed on the vote. On wonders whether his view of the CoE remains the same today as it was when he dissed GAFCON.
His chickens are well and truly coming home to roost.
Peace.
Jim