Inevitably, there has been debate among Anglican evangelicals about the pros and cons of this summer’s GAFCON gathering in Jerusalem.
Among the more thoughtful critiques was one from Fulcrum, the group which describes itself as aiming to ‘renew the evangelical centre’. I once heard Fulcrum witheringly dismissed by a prominent figure as ‘not proper evangelicals’ – by which I think he meant that they didn’t agree with him about everything! But they hold to the Church of England Evangelical Council’s statement of faith, believe ‘the proper context for sexual expression is the union of a man and a woman in marriage’ and have some very thoughtful people among them (Andrew Goddard, Ian Paul, Rachel Marszalek and Alastair Cutting, to name but a few). And it seems to me that it has become theological sharper in recent years.
Eight encouragements
Fulcrum’s statement about GAFCON is actually very positive. It lists ‘eight encouragements’ it draws from GAFCON at the start of its critique and concludes by declaring: ‘We give thanks to God for the vibrancy of faith, delight in God’s Word, and the depth of joy shown amongst the GAFCON pilgrims to Jerusalem and echo Paul’s prayer for the Ephesians (3.18) about comprehending the breadth and length and height and depth of the love of Christ, and so being filled with all the fullness of God.’
But it also raises a number of questions, including about how GAFCON chooses to define Anglican provinces, about its plans for the future, and about its declared intention to discourage bishops from attending the next global get-together of Anglican primates with Justin Welby at Lambeth in 2020.
Responding in the Church Times, Andrew Symes of Anglican Mainstream affirmed that GAFCON holds to Lambeth Resolution 1.10 on sexuality fully, rather than partially as Fulcrum had suggested: ‘It is GAFCON that holds to 1.10 in its entirety. The whole resolution was prominently displayed in the programme booklet of the recent conference. GAFCON-related provinces have not rejected the pastoral sections of the resolution… Rather, some other provinces have rejected the biblical doctrines of sex and marriage as expressed in the first part of 1.10; this has torn the fabric of the Communion, creating the need for GAFCON.’ He also reaffirms the repeated refrain at the Jerusalem Conference: ‘We are not leaving the Anglican Communion.’
Andrew Symes adds: ‘In provinces where the official Canterbury-related structures have departed from biblical orthodoxy, it cannot be right that Anglicans wishing to remain faithful to that orthodoxy have to remain tied to those structures to remain Anglican. GAFCON provides a way for them to separate, and then remain in communion with the majority of Anglicans worldwide.’
Going forward
Debates among Anglican evangelicals about the various options for going forward are bound to continue. The important thing is that these discussions centre on issues rather than personalities, and are conducted thoughtfully and graciously, recognising that just because people have a different view on the way forward it doesn’t make them either wishy-washy liberals (on the one hand) or bigoted separatists (on the other). It’s just that they have a different opinion. The Fulcrum critique of GAFCON and the response of Andrew Symes seem helpfully to be part of that sort of ongoing discussion.
