We have just published on Fulcrum my article (also published in this week's CEN) 'Problems with FCAUK', a paper given at the CEEC residential meeting today, 14th October 2009

I can't decide what's worse.  Chris Sugden/FCAUK's overt homophobia or Stephen Kuhrt's patronising 'compassionate' approach.

 I am completely orthodox on the issue of homosexuality and regard the persecution of those who take this '

I had no idea that 'homosexuality' had become an artical of faith.

It is an error to apply the word 'orthodox' to this matter, and regrettable that this mis-use has become fashionable. The term orothodox refers to the Catholic Creeds. And this paper seems unsure regarding Incarnation.

Perhaps it is unwise for a newly ordained person to be holed up in one parish curate and vicar for 6 plus years and conting all the time. Also, a life time in only, evangleical churches strikes me as very narrow. Perhaps this is orthodox too.

Dear Stephen,

thank you for what you write, which I have no doubt will earn you a bucketful of opprobrium from the supporters of FCA.

Can I raise one small but essential point. I don't want your compassion or pastoral approach unless I need it specifically for some difficulty I am facing. But certainly not because I am gay. Being gay is not a thing that needs compassion as if it were some kind of affliction. In fact, if you think about it, we try not to use that kind of language with regard to people who are differently abled, do we, any more? It always sets up a kind of "I'm ok, you are an object of compassion" dynamic that somehow diminishes the personhood of the compassionee.

Being gay is something I have learnt is to be received as a gift from God, and therefore is something that in some way, in my life and discipleship, should be celebrated. And I don't need to be patronised by well-meaning people like you.

Some statements stick out from Stephen Kuhrt's piece.

In the 1980’s under Robert Runcie the bias toward liberal Episcopal appointments was very clear. However under Rowan Williams, the sheer number of evangelical bishops being appointed is a clear indication of a current policy to appoint the best people for the job, regardless of their churchmanship.

That says more than intended, and suggests why, to some of us, Rowan Williams is a boxed-in Archbishop, and one who has 'converted' to being boxed in.

the recent statement of Rowan Williams in response to the 2009 General Convention of TEC

...which, along with the foghorn writing of the ACI and the Bishop of Durham is actively contributing to the wheels coming off his own wagon.

I take a conservative or orthodox stance on practicing homosexuality – a compassionate and pastoral one, I hope, but nonetheless a conservative stance.

Peter Selby had a lot to say about that - and it is not orthodoxy but contributing to isolating a group of people who chose to love and sexually express it entirely legitimately.

As a result of the formation of FCA, groupings on the liberal side of this debate that previously held more varied views from one another are now moving to greater coalition

It's more than the FCA - they are not so effective as they think. It's the very ethic Stephen Kuhrt is expressing: the apparent victory of Evangelicals that has woken up liberals regarding issues of toleration, enquiry, breadth, plurality, and social inclusion. The issues that the Evangelicals have made alliances about have indeed brought together a coherent and expressive liberal response.

Well at least Stephen Kuhrt does not underestimate the ability of evangelicals to pluck defeat out of the jaws of his apparent statements of victory.

Well done Stephen on a good and clear exposition on the position of Evangelicals in the Church of England.    May I just add a few observations on the four main areas of concern you identify regarding FCA:

1. The encouragement of precipitate action based on perceived problems including evangelical ordinations, cross-border church plants and getting staff for them.:

 - This was also a concern of mine at the FCA meeting but I am far from clear that the structures of the church are currently addressing them.   The best way of discouraging ‘precipitate action’ is to deal with the issues which is not seen to be happening.

-In passing I took the Bishop of Fulham in referring to “Satan residing in Church House” as a reference to the rancorous Synod debate which took place there, not its inhabitants, but I can’t be certain.

2. The encouragement of cynicism among evangelicals about CofE institutions when these structures need encouragement and endorsement:

- There are certainly some bishop appointments which are ‘open’ evangelical such as the recent appointment of the esteemed Bishop of Sherborne.  

- The recommendations of the Piling Report notwithstanding there are continuing complaints that conservative evangelicals are not being considered, and I read this week just such a report from David Phillips in CrossWay magazine for August 2009:

http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_114_SeniorAppointments.pdf

- we currently have quite a number of vacancies for senior bishops.   It will be telling to see how appointments are dealt with.

- similarly [although I am unclear whether there is more of a gay subculture among FiF members than among say Affirming Catholics and I am not sure it is helpful to cast this at them] Anglo-Catholics similarly complain about being marginalized in junior as well as senior appointments.

- The removal of Section 4 of the draft Anglican Covenant in Jamaica and it being sent to the committee appointed by Dr Williams to look at it is causing great concern.   We will have to see what emerges from that committee but I can tell you that there are a great many people in the US including among the Communion Partner supporters who are very concerned that things are going off track and we will end up with something of not much more strength than the “bonds of affection” which were found so ineffective notwithstanding earlier pronouncements by the ABC and the Bishop of Durham..

- The finances of the Church of England have taken a considerable hit and all is not well.   Cuts such as Rose Castle in Carlisle are being made.    Now comes news that the CofE investment in a New York apartment development of $70 million –is at real risk according to a report in the Wall Street Journal today:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125547827547583747.html

3. Encouraging a stand off with more liberal groupings and increasing polarization:

- Yes absolutely we are seeing pressure on the centre and people polarizing both left and right which means that we need to make the case strongly for staying together and make sure that complaints are dealt with and things are working for all our people.

- issues like bishop appointments [male or female], selection of ordinands etc should not become flashpoints.  

4. Working to hinder the mission of the CofE and evangelical groups within it:

- from what I saw the churches represented at FCA are many of those who are leading the evangelization of Britain.   They are a big part of the future of the Church of England and its mission.   They are not in favour of precipitate action if that is what FCA is proposing but I heard some real concern expressed about what was happening in the church and its effect on their mission.

My own view bringing the above together is that I am not sure we have anything to be sanguine or complacent about in the state of the Church of England, its direction, or its responsiveness to the concerns of Evangelicals.   FCA may well be the elephant in the room which is making people uncomfortable but it is also concentrating minds on the challenges.    I think we have to be honest and face up to the issues if we are not to be led into division.   Facing up to and dealing with the problems and exercising forbearance with one another would be my recommendation for Evangelicals and the rest of the church and its management.. I have no desire to see either an FCA or TEC divided Church of England.    In many ways it is up to us.

Stephen, thanks. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the FCA (which I know is what you are primarily writing about, but on which I am not commenting in this post) I think you have expressed yourself graciously and thoughtfully: thank you.

I am sorry that the first few posts in response attack you for seeking to be compassionate! I was reminded of the comment in the SU 'Encounter with God' Bible notes this morning on 1 Chron 19 which says: "Today's reading confronts us with one of the universal ironies in the predicament of 'moral man in an immoral society'. The risk of being good in a fallen world needs to be reckoned. It is likely to attract hostility, which we are to deem a facet of our blessedness..."

I hope the engagement with the CEEC was a productive one for all involved. Thanks!

Stephen - thanks for this which helpfully sets out the issues, even where we may disagree on some aspects of how the land lies (or should lie).

On the issue of senior appointments and whether conservatives would be appointed, I think we have to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Despite Pilling (which report is I think often misrepresented by those who think their group is being marginalised or ignored), the fact is that many conservatives are just plain unappointable because they lack the will to work with diversity and comprehensiveness and in some cases they lack the basic human graciousness to work with others who disagree with them.

Now before others tell me this is just another case of an open evangelical being rude about conservatives, I will readily admit that the same strictures can be applied to all groups, but I strongly suspect that those who complain that conservative evangelicals are not appointed  to senior posts would only really count the very conservative as conservative at all!

On ordinands not getting jobs (or not being recommended for training), I think this is an allied issue. I have seen several ordinands who were so picky about curacies that it is no wonder they can't find a post. I am talking about young men who tell conservative evangelical incumbents that they are too unsound Biblically for the candidate to accept a curacy with them. My latest experience of this was around the issue of reconsidering Calvin's doctrine of free will. Apparntly questioning the received interpretation of Calvin was deemed by the candidate to render the incumbent a wicked liberal!

This puts it in perspective I think!

Charles Read: "the fact is that many conservatives are just plain unappointable because they lack the will to work with diversity and comprehensiveness"

+Pete Broadbent: "ConEvos will never "get" the CofE - and why it's very hard to find suitable candidates for office in the CofE from the ConEvo constituency"

Res ipsa loquitur

...as they say...

David Baker -

can you explain to me why Stephen Kuhrt needs to be "compassionate"? The fact of his getting some mild stick for what appears to some of us to be a use of probably unintended patronising language is not a case of the righteous suffering at the hands of infidels. I am a fellow Christian!

As somebody mentioned in Stephen's article ("The Rev George Day, whom some of you may remember speaking from the floor at NEAC 2008, is another example of an evangelical thoughtfully and prayerfully questioning that traditional stance and we simply must listen to these voices,") can I urge that this thread gets over the fact that Stephen used a word (compassionate) in a perhaps somewhat unhelpful way. I imagine he's got the point by now! And anyway, do those who have criticised him really want to live in a world where we have to examine the nuance of every word before we utter it? Much better to make a few allowances for things said a little infelicitously, and get down to the task of listening.

Thank you, Stephen, for that reference to what I said. I was very conscious at NEAC of being a lone voice, but felt the point must be made that there are evangelicals who (without in the slightest abandonning scripture) do support committed gay relationships. I had rather assumed that what I said had sunk without trace, so I am very happy that it has been given a fresh airing.

Can I apologise for using the word 'compassionate' in an unhelpful way in the article. My aim in using it was to indicate to the audience (the CEEC) that a (for want of a better word) 'traditional' stance on homosexuality must be allied to a consciousness that we are discussing real people's lives not an abstract issue. This will be totally obvious to many but I felt that this point needed to be made in that context. I certainly didn't mean it to suggest a looking down on people and apologise once again for giving that impression.