GC09 is not far away.... we will see how much influence for the good "Covenant" and  "Communion Partners" et al have.  I suspect very little, as in the past.

Nowhere in the new testament are we taught to work with false teaching in the church..... tolerating and accomodating it has only brought Anglicanism problems and resulted in divisions..... 

The issue is the authority of scripture. Do not steal means do not steal, do not commit adultery means do not commit adultery.....don't eat fruit from that tree meant that fruit from a certain tree ought not to be eaten..... but the snake said, "Did God really say that?" 

Thanks Graham.  I suppose we have got somewhat waylaid on this thread in responding to the flip side of the ‘Reconciliation in Communion’, in countering and defining what we mean by the schismatic tendency in some of the posts.

I for one am very taken by the text of the ‘Reconciliation in Communion’, valuing its reach and generosity of spirit.  And yes, in spite of David Palmer questioning that generosity, I feel such largeness of spirit is true to the boundary-crossing and reconciling sweep of the biblical record.  As well as appreciating its emphasis on mission and the younger generations, I greatly value the statement, ‘General Convention needs to keep in mind that schism among Anglicans damages the witness of all involved, and thus should focus on building mutual respect leading to reconciliation.’

Thanks, David Palmer. However, may I repeat my plea to keep to the subject of Fulcrum forum threads?

Your comment would fit better under the 'Defining Evangelical' thread here, where many of these issues have been discussed before, or the 'Fulcrum Conference' thread here, (where the Rector of All Souls' Langham Place is mentioned as one of our three speakers) rather than on this thread. Do feel free to repost on one of those, perhaps having had a look at 'Canal, River and Rapids: Contemporary Evangelicalism in the Church of England.'  Let's return on this thread to the text of Covenant's statement and how people may think it may influence General Convention.

Hi Stuart,

I do find the concept of open evangelical somewhat puzzling and this statement appears to my mind muddled.

fulcrum embraces an historic orthodoxy that is generous in spirit, confident in the contribution evangelicals can make to Anglicanism, and welcoming of the diversity of traditions within the Church of England.

Four things are claimed:

historic orthodoxy by which I presume is meant the Apostles/Nicene Creeds, (old) Prayer Book and 39 Articles – if so, good

generous in spirit – this is somewhat nebulous, what is meant? At face value a big tick but generous to whom and equally generous to all possible whoms, including say those big bad conservative evangelicals including Patrick Sookhdeo?

confident in contribution evangelicals can make to Anglicanism – well, if you know that you are the bearers of the truth of God’s Word to the rest of the church, why not be confident? So, sounds good.

welcoming of the diversity of traditions within the Church of England – I think this is where the muddle is most pronounced and I simply don’t believe this claim can be reconciled with the first claim.

Acknowledging the diversity - yes, I could understand that, but welcoming liberal theology that denies cardinal Christian truth like the physical resurrection of Christ from the dead, Jesus Christ the only mediator between God and man? Surely not!

As I say, muddled.

To me, All  Souls, Langham Place would be right at the very centre of English evangelicalism.  Would you define them as open evangelical  and if so would they agree with being called “open evangelical”?

As a matter of interest, now I'm over my very busy period, I am writing a full assessment of the RCD Covenant for Episcopal Café as my monthly contribution. I only pasted texts of issue on my own blog. I'll let Episcopal Café have first thoughts. I hope Jim Naughton adds it fairly quickly, otherwise I'll get impatient!

It may be worth returning this thread to its origin, which is the text of the statement by Covenant. Let's read it again in full, including the parts about evangelism and the emphasis on youth.

Nersen, in reply to Simon, you write: ‘The Reformers made a strong case from scripture for what they believed -  that is quite different from revisionists today who ask us to ignore scripture in order to accept their views /practices.  The issue is the authority of scripture.’

Let me say again that not all revisionists ignore Scripture by any means.  Those opposing the slave trade were seen as revisionists even though they simply, and profoundly, re-examined the Bible and found it liberative rather than endorsing such a malign practice.  Those who challenged Apartheid were regarded as revisionists who challenged, through Scripture, the racist interpretation of that same Scripture by the policy’s advocates.  And today, revisionists who advocate women’s ordination put their view forward by a re-reading of the Bible.  And (your ‘elephant in the room’) the debate on gay relationships, in spite of your repeated claim to the contrary, does include revisionists who at least question the traditional interpretation by revisiting the relevant texts.

James Laz -  you refer to love and tax collectors etc.  Do have a look at how tax collectors and others were shown love and amazing grace in the bible. They were called to repent and follow the Lord... in response to grace (a la Romans 6:1-4).  They were not given leadership and teachigng positions in the church while unrepentant and trying to justify their sins....which is what we are being asked to accept in the AC. You do not show anybody love by telling them it just fine for them not to repent of teaching or behaviour which the church has stated repeatedly and consistently is incompatible with scripture....that misleads them an others.

Simon -  you argument is weak because the Reformers challenged corruption in the church by showing it was out of line with the bible......that is totally the opposite to revisionism in the AC today which asks us to ignore scripture on certain issues. The issue is the authority of scripture.

Celinda - I, like most Anglicans, think the bible is very much more than "a wonderful set of documents" -  I think you have a higher view of scripture than that, do you not?  It is because of holding such a view of scripture, i.e. it is the Spirit inspired word of God, that we cannot accept people in leadership or teaching positions who contradict scripture when it does not fit with their personal views.  You might think that staying in a church with Gene and Genpo is going to change it.... I think +Duncan and +Schofield tried being patient and hopeful in TECUSA for decades but things are now so far gone that they had to leave.  Let's see what GC09 produces.... I doubt you will see Covenant or the Communion Partners having much influence on the GC as it pursues the "new thing" regardless..... always betting that, in the end, the AC instruments will do nothing -   they have been right since 2003

Ursula King was very spiritually  inspiring as well as intellectually rigourous on today's Woman's Hour. Her new book souns like a must read ! (And a member of the RC denomination).

David Palmer, I have a suspicion that the Fulcrum Forum is actually a cunning plot by Open Evangelicals to keep Conservative Evangelicals and liberals occupied in endless argument with each other, whilst they tiptoe off to achieve world domination, or at least run another jumble sale.

Or maybe it just feels like there are more liberals and conservatives than moderates posting here...

James Laz  - is it merely to take "a different angle" to for a bishop or a vicar to teach that something is good and holy when the AC collectively, repeatedly says it is is sinful i.e. "incompatible with scripture"?    You ask about love.... it is not loving to tolerate false teaching....it damages the health of the church and leads people astray.   You menion tax collectors etc.... were they told they had no need to repent and put in teaching and leadership positions while justifying their sins? 

Simon - the logic of your post seems to be that since reformers may have once been considered revisionists, we have no right to challenge revisionism today... that is a weak argument.   The Reformers made a strong case from scripture for what they believed -  that is quite different from revisionists today who ask us to ignore scripture in order to accept their views /practices.  The issue is the authority of scripture.

Celinda - I, like most Anglicans, think the bible is much more than "a wonderful set of documents"  .... that is why  accommodation is not possible with people who teach the opposite to what it says.  You may be happy to be in a church with Gene and Genpo in teaching and leadership positions, I am not -  nothing against them personally, just that teaching "incompatible with scripture" contradicts the word of God ..... that is in essence why oppositon to revisionism in the AC comes not only from conservatives but from a very wide range of Anglicans at this time, including modertates like Fulcrum's leadership, Anglocatholics and even people like +Duncan and +Schofield who for decades tried to work within TECUSA - but no longer think anything can be achieved that way, having gone the extra mile for a couple of decades..... I respect those who want to carry on trying but my question stands -  what do they achieve apart from giving a clearly revisionist leadership some cover while having no influence.   Are you really hopeful that GC09 will deliver meaningful movement from TEC towards the AC covenant proposal and that TEC will stick to that covenant with integrity??