John Sandeman - 26 April 2008 09:21 PM

Gordon, I am sure you speak for many, particularly in Sydney. And I am a lambeth skeptic like yourself. But with both Venables and Packer quoted (in my earlier post) in the context of a rally of the conservative evangelicals leaving the Anglican Church of Canada, I can’t see those supporters of Packer and Short seeing Venables as a betrayer. 

No, they wouldn’t. I think I’m agreeing with you that Venables would be an exception. He is going to deliver a protest, and everyone knows it.

*Hands Gordon a wipe*

Gordon Cheng - 21 April 2008 01:32 PM

The decision by genuine evangelicals to boycott Lambeth is looking wiser and wiser by the day.

Gordon Cheng - 24 April 2008 10:58 AM

It would be easy to see how supporters of Packer and Short would view attendance at Lambeth 2008, by those claiming to be evangelicals, as a form of betrayal of the stand that Packer and Short have taken.

Fair enough too. As the issues become clearer, the unhealthy compromise involved in evangelicals attending the Lambeth get-together likewise becomes clearer.

John Sandeman - 26 April 2008 04:01 PM

The conservative evangelical Bishop with whom Packer and Short have allied themselves, Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone has told the Vancouver Sun that he is going to Lambeth.

Gordon Cheng - 26 April 2008 08:50 PM

Well, I haven’t said that it would be a betrayal, so much that it would be hard not to be perceived that way by Packer-Short supporters. As a general statement, that remains true.

For the egg, mate..

The context of the last quote, however:

Well, I haven’t said that it would be a betrayal, so much that it would be hard not to be perceived that way by Packer-Short supporters. As a general statement, that remains true.

The case of Venables is clearly different, in that he is going with the express and publicly stated intention of delivering a protest.

Venables is the honourable exception that casts greater doubt on those who are not making a similar protest.

Actually, this does open up a new and interesting scenario that evangelicals would turn up to Lambeth not for fellowship, but for a fight.

I don’t think either of those options is wise, but ‘fight’ would be preferable to ‘fellowship’ as it wouldn’t (in and of itself) involve compromise on biblical truth— whereas to turn up and pretend fellowship would indeed be a sell-out of basic scriptural principles.

As there’s not a lot to be gained by fighting, and quite a lot to lose, I still think it is better in political terms to outflank Lambeth and start anew with GAFCON. That is not one of the options on the table at the moment, however.

Bearing in mind there’s a lot we agree on here Gordon, I think it has been clear for some time that those (conservative) evangelicals who turn up at Lambeth will protest the Canadian and US situations. That is especially true of those who will have attended Gafcon first. (Attending Gafcon of itself will carry a protest). I am glad you are prepared to turn down the rhetoric a bit, especially towards the gafconites who may journey on to London. ISTM you disagree with them on tactics or strategy, but not on principle.

John Sandeman - 28 April 2008 12:18 AM

Bearing in mind there’s a lot we agree on here Gordon, I think it has been clear for some time that those (conservative) evangelicals who turn up at Lambeth will protest the Canadian and US situations.

I think I’d like to wait and see! To call it ‘clear’ seems optimistic. In the case of Venables it is clear because he has already quite deliberately crossed diocesan boundaries in support an orthodox cause, and much to the dismay and consternation of the liberals including Rowan Williams. That by itself puts him in a unique category amongst Lambeth attenders, I would have thought. If I’m wrong about that, I’d be delighted.

I don’t at all see that attendance at GAFCON is necessarily a ‘protest’. I don’t doubt that Rowan Williams would love to be have been invited to be there too, but not to protest against Lambeth ‘08. People have all sorts of reasons for turning up to things. I would anticipate a reasonable crowd of people at GAFCON flying the ‘why can’t we all be nice to each other’ flag, or at least ready to whip it out of their backpacks at the first sign of non-niceness.

Hmm. Perhaps they should have a Lambeth torch relay. ;-)

I think you betray a Sydney-centric view here. (That is hardly surprising) Many of the people attending the Gafcon conference will be from the third world, and it will be expensive for them to go there. They are not going there out of niceness in my view. I think to suggest that is overly cynical. But lets watch and see.

Is Venables unique in attending both Lambeth and Gafcon, and supporting those leaving ACofC or TEC? Well, no.

Drexel Gomez, a Lambeth and Gafcon attender, crossed boundaries to confirm people at Christchurch Overland in Kansas (a breakaway from TEC) and has been criticised stronly by TEC Liberals for doing so. Mouneer Anis was outspoken at Dar es Salaam for discipline of TEC. Anis, with John Chew included breakaway evangelicals from TEC/ACofC in the Global South Summit.

So off the top of my not very well informed head those bishops are other Gafcon and Lambeth attenders who have acted to support TEC/ACoC refuseniks.

There will be others. But the list of attendees at Gafcon is not public AFAIK.

It is worth noting that Gafcon is invitation only, and that invitation is in the hands of an organising committee of people like Peter Jensen and Peter Akinola. I would have thought it unlikely that they would invite the “lets be nice to everybody” crowd. For example Peter Jensen is responsible for 60 places for Australia and New Zealand.

John Sandeman - 28 April 2008 01:17 AM

I think you betray a Sydney-centric view here. (That is hardly surprising) Many of the people attending the Gafcon conference will be from the third world, and it will be expensive for them to go there. They are not going there out of niceness in my view. I think to suggest that is overly cynical. But lets watch and see.

‘Watch and see’ is wise advice.

As with any large gathering of people, invited or not, there will be a spectrum of opinions. I note that the GAFCON website assumes this with reference to the very issue we are discussing:

Through our conversations together and clarifications made, we are led to understand and appreciate the principled reasons for participation in GAFCON (June 2008) and Lambeth Conference (Jul 2008). Even if there are different perspectives on these, they do not and should not be allowed to disrupt the common vision, unity and trust within the Global South.

[bold mine].

Protest is undoubtedly in the mind of the GAFCON organizers, and that is why we should keep praying for them. But the protest will be all the more effective if as well as those protesting, they manage to attract people who stand in the sympathetic but unconvinced middle ground. Once you have nearly 1000 people from all corners of Anglicanism attending (from the numbers in this report) it is inevitable that a proportion of those will be people who hold, in the words of the GAFCON website “different perspectives on [Lambeth and GAFCON]”.

I don’t doubt that there are people who will be attending Lambeth and GAFCON who have protested against the actions of TEC and the Canadian Anglicans. Arguably, even Rowan Williams has protested; NT Wright certainly has and we know how much he dislikes the idea of GAFCON. The number of those currently involved in ongoing action like Venables and Gomez is small bordering on miniscule, and I am glad they exist. But for the others, talk is unfortunately cheap and attendance at both GAFCON and Lambeth is still going to look like having a bet both ways.

Which I think lands us back at the point of questioning whether the appearance of fellowship with false teachers is wise or, biblically speaking, right. Even Venables, were he to attend communion at Lambeth and take part in all the other aspects of the conference, would have a hard time shaking the perception that he is involved in compromise. Hard for him, near impossible for many others.

Gordon
as is your right you hold Bishop Venables to a very high standard.

It would be easy to see how supporters of Packer and Short would view attendance at Lambeth 2008, by those claiming to be evangelicals, as a form of betrayal of the stand that Packer and Short have taken.

This applies even though Packer and Short have chosen him as their new bishop. He is good enough for Packer and Short but not for some undefined supporters of Packer and Short, presumably not many of those who attended last weekends gathering in Canada that featured all three. I quoted Packer’s enthusistic endorsement of Venables above.
Venables is a member of the Gafcon leadership team; he is someone whom Peter Jensen and Peter Akinola have chosen to serve with.
A couple of weekends ago our Sydney bishops attended a National Bishop’s conference in Newcastle.
Does this fit the sort of activity that you wondered about Venables (in a post just above)?

Which I think lands us back at the point of questioning whether the appearance of fellowship with false teachers is wise or, biblically speaking, right.

You have every right to raise the issues about associations with false teachers. It is a good question. Perhaps someday soon there will be a formal split in the Anglican Communion. For the time being my instinct is to have trust in leaders like Venables, Jensen, and the Gafcon team. Being to the right of Peter Jensen on this issue has little value IMHO. I will leave it to readers to determine whether they think you have gone a little overboard in your rhetoric.

John Sandeman - 28 April 2008 10:25 AM

I quoted Packer’s enthusistic endorsement of Venables above.

And good for both of them. I’ve already suggested why I think Venables is an honourable exception, but even so he is going to have his work cut out for him not to be absorbed into the Borg Collective that is Lambeth ‘08.

A couple of weekends ago our Sydney bishops attended a National Bishop’s conference in Newcastle.
Does this fit the sort of activity that you wondered about Venables (in a post just above)?

Unless someone in Australia has been openly and publicly ordaining practising homosexuals after repeated warnings against such action from their brother bishops, this meeting is not comparable, no.

Being to the right of Peter Jensen on this issue has little value IMHO.

Just a small protest, if I may. I have generally associated the ‘right’ with political conservatism and a desire to maintain existing political structures. As my view is that, on the whole, an acceleration toward rampant anarchy would be the right thing for worldwide Anglicanism and even better for biblical orthodoxy, I prefer to think of myself as slightly to the left of PFJ. Roll on the apocalypse—or rather, ‘Come, Lord Jesus!’

Well progress is progress and I am truely pleased that you no longer think that any evangelical who goes to Lambeth is automatically a betrayer. I would certainly urge anyone who went to be a protestant.
The number of those who go to both Lambeth and Gafcon may be quite small - we will find out soon enough. So let’s move the discussion on.
You gave an interesting response in your last post - so with no intention of being cheeky or tripping you up - can I ask....
Is attending a meeting of church leaders (bishops) which includes those who ordain women priests/presbyters/bishops less offensive an assocuiation with false teachers than attending one which includes those who ordain sexually active homosexuals?
Is women’s ordination a lesser issue in some sense than homosexuality?
What defines a issue that would require schism? A salvation issue? grave sin?
My impression was that one could possibly read the Dean’s recent paper and conclude “yes” to the first two questions. I may be misreading it though.

Well progress is progress and I am truely pleased that you no longer think that any evangelical who goes to Lambeth is automatically a betrayer. I would certainly urge anyone who went to be a protestant. (Going to Gafcon instead would be preferable in my view.)
The number of those who go to both Lambeth and Gafcon may be quite small - we will find out soon enough. So let’s move the discussion on.
You gave an interesting response in your last post - so with no intention of being cheeky or tripping you up - can I ask....
Is attending a meeting of church leaders (bishops) which includes those who ordain women priests/presbyters/bishops less offensive an assocuiation with false teachers than attending one which includes those who ordain sexually active homosexuals?
Is women’s ordination a lesser issue in some sense than homosexuality?
What defines a issue that would require schism? A salvation issue? grave sin?
My impression was that one could possibly read the Dean’s recent paper and conclude “yes” to the first two questions. I may be misreading it though.

John Sandeman - 28 April 2008 05:02 PM

Well progress is progress and I am truely pleased that you no longer think that any evangelical who goes to Lambeth is automatically a betrayer.

I think (although lots of electrons have been spilled on the subject in the last month or two, so blanket statements are unwise) that I’ve been very cautious to say that this particular question is about how evangelicals who attend Lambeth will be perceived, and specifically not what I personally believe to be the case.

As you know I have strong views on the subject, but they don’t extend as far as seeing into the hearts of all 800 or so bishops who got the invite to Lambeth.

Is attending a meeting of church leaders (bishops) which includes those who ordain women priests/presbyters/bishops less offensive an assocuiation with false teachers than attending one which includes those who ordain sexually active homosexuals?
Is women’s ordination a lesser issue in some sense than homosexuality?

I’m not so far to the right, the left, or the whatever that I would believe being a female to be a sin! And as significant an issue as the ordination of women has been, it is likewise impossible to conclude that such an action always and necessarily involves sin. Whereas practising homosexual behaviour, and/or endorsing it by ordaining such a person, always involves sin—as evangelicals understand it, anyway.

*Hands Gordon another wipe*

Gordon Cheng - 28 April 2008 06:46 PM

I think (although lots of electrons have been spilled on the subject in the last month or two, so blanket statements are unwise) that I’ve been very cautious to say that this particular question is about how evangelicals who attend Lambeth will be perceived, and specifically not what I personally believe to be the case.

As you know I have strong views on the subject, but they don’t extend as far as seeing into the hearts of all 800 or so bishops who got the invite to Lambeth.

Well that’s a rather interesting admission. Gordon, perhaps you could explain how, on the one hand, you can’t see into the hearts of all 800 or so bishops, but you can see into the minds of all evangelicals everywhere to the extent that you can reliably deduce that they will perceive evangelical bishops attending Lambeth as weasels and compromising, sub-biblical, semi-evangelical, non-genuine betrayers?

They are indeed the qualities you’ve ascribed to these evangelical bishops by your own evangelical mind-reading powers. Well, that is the evangelical bishops who you don’t deem worthy of an official, heavily qualified pardon, as you seem to be the judge in these matters.

I don’t think anyone has or is having a bar of it though. Your none-too-subtle, but rather underhanded attacks-by-inference, using your mighty powers of perception into the minds of all evangelicals everywhere, betray your own views quite clearly.

To proclaim that you, oh so innocently, haven’t indicated what you personally believe on the subject is just a tad rich, I think.

David Palmer - 21 April 2008 12:17 AM

Gordon Cheng - 20 April 2008 07:36 PM

An update.

NT Wright has an extraordinary ability to pour forth words. If you look long and hard enough (towards the end of this recent document) you will discover him inviting a comparison between Rowan Williams and the apostle Paul, and the false teachers at Corinth (’super-apostles’) with the evangelicals who are not attending Lambeth.

I actually think it is worse than this

What NT Wright has done in the speech that Gordon has drawn our attention to is to link the leaders of Gafcon to the Super Apostles of 2 Cor. Clearly from 2 Cor 11 the super apostles are false prophets, ie apostates, in other words Jensen and Akinola are false prophets/apostates.

Now Wright might say he doesn’t mean that, but that, without naming names is what he has done.

Hi,
Just backing up to an earlier point in this thread....
here is Archbishop Venables’ view on Bishop Wright’s comments on GAFCON and “super-apostles” from VirtueOnline :

VirtueOnline: What is your reaction to Durham Bishop Tom Wright’s reaction to GAFCON?

Venables: I am sad that the dialogue was public and in no way addressed personally to those of us who are involved in the organization. The ‘super apostles’ comment by Wright is not only bordering on the absurd, but says far more about Tom Wright than it says about anyone else.

I see it as a violent statement, unsupported by any serious exegesis of Scripture nor is it a valid understanding of both the Early Church’s understanding of heresy and its reinterpretation in the 21st Century, but perhaps he believes he is above all that. You can dismiss the past, but our present is rooted in the past and we cannot ignore the apostles’ teaching, and their rootedness in Jesus as their master and God’s Word written.

Grace & peace,
Terry