Why the GAFCON Resolution on Kenya is So Awful
A Gaffe from GAFCON
Some readers are probably tired of hearing about GAFCON’s response to the consecration of a woman diocesan bishop in Kenya already. But I think it needs to be briefly said why the GAFCON statement is a gaffe and probably a significant one.
In response to the consecration and not a little unhappiness about it, the GAFCON Primates passed the following resolution:
The Jerusalem Declaration affirms that the Bible makes a distinction between salvation issues and other secondary issues. In our discussion, the Primates acknowledged that while there is disagreement and ongoing discussion on the issues of the ordination of women as deacons or priests, and the consecration of women as Bishops, we are agreed that these are not salvation issues and are not issues that will disrupt our mission: to proclaim Christ faithfully to the nations.
Here’s why I think the resolution is so awful:
1. There is no rebuke at all of what the Archbishop of Kenya did. A bishop is supposed to be a focus of unity. Anglican bishops should therefore as much as possible be recognized as bishops by all catholic Anglicans and beyond. One does not have to be a dogged opponent of woman’s ordination to see that and to see that the Archbishop of Kenya virtually trashed that principle of unity in consecrating a woman as a diocesan bishop. That at a time when WO remains a sensitive issue.
At the very least, that merited a rebuke from GAFCON.
2. This will “disrupt our mission.” One cannot harm church unity like this without hindering mission. There will be some who will now be less willing to work with the Anglican Church of Kenya and with GAFCON.
This also weakens ties within the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). Yes, ACNA retains its ban on women bishops, in the Canons even. But I know that a big reason at least one important entity joined ACNA at its formation was to retain ties with GAFCON provinces. To reduce the desirability of those ties can only weaken ties within ACNA at time when it has enough problems and disunity already.
The GAFCON Primates can say and intend that this situation will not disrupt mission, but it will. Such disunity will not leave mission unaffected.
3. The statement is a backhanded slap to traditionalists. The statement only downplayed the importance of the issue of women’s ordination. It said it will not “disrupt out mission” as if GAFCON can carry on while alienating traditionalists.
Part of the downplaying of the importance of the WO issue is saying it is not a salvation issue but only a secondary issue. Well, yes and no. No, I do not think anyone will be excluded from Christ’s kingdom because one supported WO. Yes, there are dioceses that ordain women which retain a history of faithfulness I highly respect.
But WO correlates with too many aspects of church orthodoxy and faithfulness that do affect souls. Dioceses and jurisdictions that ordain women are more likely to deviate from orthodoxy and catholicity. Such are more likely to have a weak view on the authority of scripture. Such are much more likely to have become woke. Personally, the only woman priest that impresses me as a teacher is one who has chosen not to act as a priest. All of these factors and more affect the health and witness of the church and the salvation of souls.
WO has been around long enough to judge its fruit, and that fruit overall is not good. (This is the main reason I have slowly become dead set against women’s ordination.)
Also, WO rather directly affects the administration of the sacraments and, in the eyes of many, the validity of Holy Communion. The sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion are certainly relevant to salvation.
Now is the GAFCON statement the end of the world? No. Was a perfect statement undoing the damage the Anglican Church of Kenya has done possible? No.
But the Archbishop of Kenya did serious damage to the unity of orthodox Anglicans. Pretending, as GAFCON did, that is not the case only makes matters worse.
—
NOTE:
After I posted, I discovered a strong post on the same subject at North American Anglican by Fr. Lee Nelson. I heartily recommend it.
'Way back in the dim and distant past (the mid-1990s), a wise priest once said that "the ordination of women is a second-order issue with first-order implications." As you said, no one is going to lose their salvation simply because they supported it (at least, I don't think so... I hope not). But also as you said, it carries with it too much baggage that *does* have salvation-affecting implications – not least being that, if one can ignore the clear teaching of Scripture (and tradition, which is key to an orthodox interpretation of Scripture) in this regard, in what other regards might one decide to ignore it?
I am one who by nature tends to be a conciliator; maybe in some ways, too much of one. But there are some places where lines clearly need to be drawn: and the ostensible ordination of women to the three-fold Orders of ordained ministry in Christ's one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is one of them. It is a pretense, first of all (and God is the God of truth); and it is a pretense which is unhealthy and damaging to the life and ministry of the Church. Given those facts, what can we say about its ultimate (metaphysical) origin...? The conclusion seems, to me, to be sadly inescapable.
Appreciate your take, Mark. It is discouraging as a traditional/orthodox Anglican (layperson) to see all this happening and feel we are being sold a false bag of goods. I remember in McKenzie's Anglican Way, he outright advocates for lying to keep peace and I consider whether that is what we are seeing now. Comparing this conflict-avoiding to a Fireside Chat between Dennis Prager and Roy McCoy (ep. 188) was unreal. McCoy, a Calvary Chapel pastor, asserted that current clergy have bought into the lie that peace is the absence of conflict. In reality, it is only through facing conflict that we arrive at peace. I see some major avoiding of conflict, only to the detriment of our church in the years to come.