Thanks Peter.  Yes, we must work for unity..... I notice even the "hardliners" (as some see them) of GAFCON are still working for AC unity and all the Primates were in Alexandria -  people are going the extra mile for unity after years of patience with a small minority that does not want to abide by what the ABC calls the "mind of the Communion" based on scripture.    As you know, as St Paul taught the early church (eg 1 Cor 5-6), unity is not always possible when it is at the cost of truth  -  so, when a small minority in the AC refuses to abide by the agreed AC positions but cannot change that "mind of the Communion", it is reasonable after trying to establish unity to come to a point where there is a resolution which may involve admitting that we have very different approaches to scripture and very different beliefs as a result.  It is not reasonable, for the sake of unity, to say that "do not do x" is compatible with "do x as it is good and holy"  -  that kind of fudge does not build genuine unity. 

The ABC takes a "liberal" view on certain issues but he says that the discipline of the church must not be "merely disregarded"  -  it might be possible to be united with someone who takes that position as it seems accepting of church discipline.  It is quite another thing to legitimise a minority view contradicting the "mind of the Communion" but doing its own thing anyway while still demanding to be in the AC and participating fully..... it is an amazing demand.  Reminds me of Militant in the old Labour Party...... but the majority of the AC is not willing to accept that subversion  from inside even  (as GAFCON showed in Jerusalem)..... if we want genuine unity, it has to be based on agreed truth.  This is where the covenant can help   (but, of course, some say that they could not possibly ratify it before spending the next 5-10 years studying it....while going against the "mind of the Communion" regardless, as they are now.)  We have to decide if we want institutional unity or unity based on a common set of beliefs..... I want the latter, based on the scriptures.

Thanks for your reply, Peter.  However, I disagree if it is your suggestion that the church which is the bride of Christ is made up of man-made denominations.... it is certainly made up of people who are in various man-made denominations. I am sure we can agree that it is not the buildings or the institutions but the people who are the church.

(Because I think the true church is made up of people and not institutions, I think that evangelicals in the CofE should not be divided because of differing views on institutional politics but should be supporting each other whether they take a GAFCON or a Reform or a Fulcrum stance on the institution.... the institution is definitely not very important ultimately....the people are....and the truth we believe is.)

A very fine comment, Peter, in response to Nersen. Many thanks.

Hi Nersen Yes, I do think you are missing a profound point! There is one church not two. What you refer to as a 'man-made denomination' in distinction from 'the bride of Christ' is a visible part of the church which is being prepared to be the bride of Christ. What you describe as created centuries after Christ by a king who wanted a new wife was in fact created within decades of Christ's ascension, as slaves, soldiers etc converted to Christ made their way to the shores of Britain. It had a number of ups and downs and refinements through the years, and a mighty reform in the 16th century, triggered in an admittedly unusual way. Through that reform some aspects of the governance of the church changed, and not all since have been satisfied with the new regime. But the Church of England, even with many faults, has been a true church in which the Word of God dwells richly, the sacraments are validly performed, and the Spirit of God has been at work calling and equipping people for service. As a true church it is a member of the great church of churches throughout the world. There are many blemishes, rents and tears in the wedding gown of God's universal church and it is far from full readiness to partake in the wedding supper of the Lamb, but it is God's church!

Hello Peter. Perhaps I am missing a profound point but is there not an obvious distinction to be made between the church which is the bride of Christ and our man-made denominations?    Even if we can be in both, it would be ridiculous to confuse the two....especially for the newer denominations eg Anglicanism.  

It is quite hard to argue that the CofE is not a man-made denomination....was it not created centuries after Christ by a king wanted a new wife and some theologians who helped him achieve his wishes in exchange for his support for their desire to assert certain biblical ideas over the teaching of the then Bishop of Rome?  Is it not today an institution which still has politicians meddling in its appointments?  Is there not (too) much in it (not just fine vestments!) which the apostles and their Lord would not recognise as anything they started?  None of these questions deny the sovereignty of God..... but the fingerprints (sometimes very grubby) of people are all over every denomination, are they not?

Because our institutions are man-made, even if we preach the gospel,  the call to be loyal to institutions,  is weak - especially when they deviate from scripture. I guess the call to institutional unity was made against Cranmer's call for the authority of scripture in his denomination.....he was right not to put the human  insitution  above the scriptures and we need to do the same, do we not....precisely because of our primary membership in the church of God and not our various denominations?

The sooner we get it that unity is not about staying or leaving i.e. not about the man-made institutions, the better.  The unity which matters in untiy in the gospel - which is why the key issue is the authority of scripture.  We should all value the stand and work of Reform and Fulcrum, +Duncan and +Lawrence, Andrew Goddard and Stephen Noll...... we need to put different views on institutional politics in their (very secondary) place if we are serious about unity in the gospel...... and that should lead us not to attack each other (too much of that has happened.....to nobody's credit) but to be focussed on rebutting (in different but valuable ways) the very real attacks on the gospel inside the CofE /AC.

Well, well, well. Greg Griffith, a founder of the Stand Firm web site, has posted on Stand Firm today a very interesting article, 'TEC Stayers: lessons from the sixth passenger'.

Hello Graham - while I am encouraged by what Stephen Noll has written, I am not yet convinced that the covenant is not going to be a fudge.....we have to wait and see the final document before being positive or negative about it....I hope to be positive.....depends on how things pan out in the next year.

+Rochester raises important questions about the Ridley draft -  these need to be answered. It is not yet clear or obvious that we can rely on the answers being positive in terms of AC commitment to scripture and discipline.

As we all know, some are working very hard inside the councils of the AC to neutralise the proposed covenant so that it produces no change in the status quo  (i.e. any province being able to "tear the fabric of the Communion" but face no real consequences)...... to be positive about any covenant, it would be good to see that that the Communion cannot be taken hostage through any fait accompli in the way that it has been in the last six years.....amazing how time passes when we are not having fun.

While it is good that GAFCON is willing to work for AC unity if the AC sticks to its own scriptural roots, the Jerusalem conference itself is a sign that such willingness is not limitless...... but it is good that its leaders, including Noll, are not unthinking splitters, even though they are sometimes painted that way by their opponents, and a covenant which is genuinely going to address AC problems in the last few years will get their support. One that does not will not....I think that is clear.

I really hope that your optimistic view is correct and Stephen Noll's hopes for the Ridley draft turn out to be well founded.  I hope certain groups will not play politics and sign up with no intention of really limiting their deviation from scrpture or the "mind of the Communion"  in the hope that, like in the last 6 years, they will face no real consequences.  We all have to wait and see..... and pray in the meantime, recognising that not all in the AC are working for such a result.  Too early to open the champagne just now.....is it not?

Thanks, Nersen. However, your comment comes across as cynical. People could be forgiven if they concluded that, in fact, you would rather that the Covenant did not work at all...

Why still be so cynical about it when Stephen Noll has been positively appreciative of it? Why not reread his article and his comment mentioned below - and even, in the light of those, the text of the Ridley Cambridge Draft?

Stephen Noll has responded to my article ‘Between the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC’ with a long comment on the TitusOneNine thread on it here. It is very interesting and worth reading.

As well as the quotation I gave in my article from Henry Orombi, Archbishop of Uganda, in the Anglican TV interview after the Primates’ Meeting in Alexandria, I've also noticed that he stated, even more positively and precisely, concerning the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury:

But, of course, Anglicanism as a Communion, recognises - and we recognise - Rowan as the head of the Communion.

+Rochester not convinced re potential fudges of Ridley draft and the ongoing  process in AC........hope Jamaica is not just another meeting in an endless string of meetings which end up doing little (despite that being in the interests of a few in the AC)...... I doubt GAFCON can be bothered with endless years of meetings with no resolution.....it clearly does not need to be (as demonstrated last year).  Glad to see +Rochester giving the AC the benefit of his clarity and wisdom.

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/22263/#more