GAFCON's Blinders

Friday Thinking Anglicans posted a link to Chris Sugden's article in the Church Times entitled "Why Hold A Conservative Anglican Conference." The tag line, which sparked my interest, reads "The gathering is vital to ensure that Churches are not overwhelmed by Western culture, argues Chris Sugden." Did he really say that?

Well, no, not exactly, but it makes a good tag line. Here is what he actually said:

This is one of God’s ways of ensuring that Churches in the West are not overwhelmed by the power of their surrounding culture, because they are in fellowship with and accountable to Christians in other cultures and contexts.

Since the "Churches in the West," i.e., the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church in Canada, the Church of England, and a few others, have not followed the path their conservative minorities would like, they must be held accountable to "Christians in other cultures and contexts," i.e., the Anglican Church of Nigeria, the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, and a few others, egged on by those conservative minorities. It seems that fellowship and accountability only work in one direction for these folks.

For centuries the Church of the West--primarily the Roman Catholic Church--was responsible not only for enforcing the "surrounding culture," but spreading that culture across the globe, by force if necessary. Western culture has changed and continues to change. Christianity has changed and continues to change. What began as a small Judean cult spread to the Greco-Roman world where it took on aspects of Greek philosophy and Roman power structures. The Romans carried the "new faith" throughout their empire and converted subject tribes. In the process of conversion local deities became Christian saints and sacred sites became Christian wells and shrines.

When the superpowers of Europe conquered and settled other parts of the globe, the Church went with them. Often the Church spurred them on. As Western Europeans came in contact with other cultures and contexts they ruthlessly subjugated or exterminated them. In many places the native peoples were forced to convert to Christianity or die. Sometimes it was a case of convert and die.

Even so, Christianity did not remain static. Wherever it went, it both influenced and was influenced by the cultures and contexts it encountered. The Celtic churches had many distinct differences from the Roman church, differences that lingered even after the Synod of Whitby in 664. Liberation Theology arose out of cultural contexts in South America in the middle of the last century.

Nor did Christianity remain unchanged in Europe. The Reformation brought new understandings of the sacred texts and what it meant to live a Christian life. Often those new understandings grew out of the contexts of the culture where they originated.

And so here we are in the 21st Century, still struggling with what it means to be Christian, let alone Anglican. The church in all its messy variety is very different from the small Judean cult from which it sprang. Yet some conservative Anglican bishops have called for GAFCON to meet in the modern successor to Judea in order "to affirm the basis of the apostolic and biblical faith." They continue to ignore the fact that "the accepted teaching of the Bible,...the Church throughout the ages, and...the Anglican Communion" have not remained unchanged through the centuries.

If there is any hope of salvaging the Anglican Communion, these bishops and those who surround them must understand that their version of Christianity is as far removed its roots as that of those they label unorthodox and heretical. The oak tree cannot be pushed back into the acorn from which it sprang.

Peace,
Jeffri