They're Not Divided

There is a claim of some sort of mysterious circumstance about the appearance of a paper apparently to be presented at the coming GAFCON conference. The Lead at Episcopal Café has presented it. The Modern Churchpeople's Union blog suggests this:

My guess would be that it is one of many papers circulating amongst GAFCON invitees. It may have been made public because (from one of its statements) its author is annoyed at the secrecy of the present arrangements, seeing it as contrary to the spirit of the Gospel and counter-productive (though secrecy has helped keep the attention of liberal bloggers on the content and intent of the conference, e.g. here). It may have been leaked because of its relatively irenical tone, which probably puts it author on the 'left' of the gathering - though whether that's because it's safer to leak, or is an attempt to embarrass its author amongst harder line colleagues, is impossible to tell.

Not at all, as indeed I have left a comment over there. The core leadership is not divided. There is a simpler explanation why Episcopal Café has received it (and reproduced elsewhere too): it addresses liberal stances on the Church. It shows this beginning with the opening paragraph:

...some Churches in the Anglican Communion are radically redefining the received faith, and abandoning fundamental parts of it. We recognize that many in these Churches believe that the challenges they are making are Spirit-led, and necessary in order to respond to the challenges that the Church faces today.

Here are matters it examines:

We have upheld the received biblical faith. We have found it to be relevant and powerful in addressing contemporary challenges. ...We have not claimed to possess the complete truth, but nor have we considered truth to be so provisional and partial...

We recognize that the Holy Spirit of God leads God's people to truth, as they act and reflect together. We also recognize, however, that this is not just a continual process of listening and sharing...

To deny the possibility of any access to the truth of God, suggests that God has been inadequate in making himself known to his own creation and to his creatures.

...

...the core issues are about whether or not there is one Word, accessible to all, and whether or not there is one Christ, accessible to all.

Discernment is to do with seeing reality as God intends us to see it. ...

...

The Bishops of the Church are called to uphold her faith. In their relationship to the Spirit and the Holy Scriptures, they are a sign of the unity that God gives to the Church...

...The heroes of the faith, mentioned in the letter to the Hebrews, are celebrated for their public actions, not their feelings. ...

The possibility that there may be a truth that can be known is good news for people who want to see change. Those who deny that access to the truth is possible define everything in terms of power. ...The fundamental question is whether the Church is the message, or has the message. Some people want to say that the Church can share experience, and worship, and work, but that it cannot share faith because expressions of faith are so personal and diverse. So, they would say, the message of the Church is that its own diversity, and its ability to live with plurality and contradiction in its own membership on matters of faith, is precisely its witness in a plural society.

But the tensions and contradictions inherent in this position have become impossible to maintain. ...

Our journey is witness that the truth of God is accessible. We are convinced that God has made himself known, sufficiently for us to be able to respond to him, and make truly moral choices between obedience and disobedience. This is critically important for evangelism among the poor.

Our journey has been to challenge those who would exercise institutional power to suppress the truth. ...

Far from accepting unlimited diversity and disobedience to the truth, this will mean respecting the order that God has given for authority in his Church and wholesomeness in society. ...

All these address liberal concerns. What is bizarre is this notion that somehow a Church of diversity and liberalism allows the powerful to rule. This very point was made by Rev. Chris Sugden some months back made in a rather weak and incoherent presentation (I thought) to the Anglican Network of Canada, Vancouver - and that was about postmodernism. I have never seen the argument made or justified; it is just an assumption given. I would guess that this piece too was written by Chris Sugden, at the very centre of organising GAFCON.

These words are from Vancouver; hear the echo:

So the message of the church is that its own diversity, and ability to live with plurality and contradiction in its own membership on matters of faith is precisely its witness in a plural society.

It does not carry his name and it might not because of the sensitivity in public that he and Bishop Martyn Minns end up writing so much and the ongoing claim that they do not (e.g. on BBC's Hardtalk).

There is nothing of internal debate here at all; the GAFCON leadership have produced what I call Religious Trotskyitism, that is to say close leadership that keeps its internal battles internal: they already have the conclusion to the conference worked out and what is to come. We have yet to find out, but it looks like being something like an Instrument with statements beyond Canterbury that co-ordinates international oversight, that coheres these African Churches plus Southern Cone and Sydney, and other partnership/ networking structures, including new ones. The model is that as already carried out by Bishop Robert Duncan, with him having an important or even lead role in this international oversight and the invasion of existing Churches to pluck out evangelical and other frustrated congregations and, in some places, dioceses.