|
Fulcrum Conference London 2009
Saturday 16 May 2009, 10am to 4pm
Spirituality of Unity
Conference Speakers:
|
Given the strains and stresses among Evangelical Anglicans, the conference will provide an important opportunity to explore the spirituality that undergirds our unity together and ways to handle difference on the basis of that unity. Speakers are drawn from the different streams of Evangelical Anglicanism
Location:
25 minutes from Waterloo station by train - five minutes walk from New Malden station.
Click here for a location map or see the Christ Church website.
Conference Timetable:
| 9.45 |
|
Registration and Refreshments |
| 10.15 |
|
Welcome, introductions and opening worship |
Spirituality of Unity: Three Perspectives
|
| 10.45 |
|
Hugh Palmer |
| 11.15 |
|
Jane Morris |
| 11.45 |
|
Refreshments |
| 12.00 |
|
Adrian Chatfield |
| |
|
|
| 12.30 |
|
Discussion and Feedback |
|
|
Buzz groups for 15 minutes then panel discussion from the three speakers on the feedback from the groups |
| |
|
|
| 13.15 |
|
Lunch - sandwich shops are nearby, hot drinks will be provided |
| |
|
|
| 14.00 |
|
Worship |
Spirituality of Unity in Practice
|
| 14.15 |
|
Groups facilitated by Phil Stone |
| 15.15 |
|
Refreshments |
Conclusion
|
| 15.30 |
|
Worship and Biblical Reflection by Ian Paul |
| 16.00 |
|
Depart |
Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum
Forum Posts About This Article:
Posted by: Clare
Wednesday 3 June 2009 - 08:28am
sorry wggrace - of course you are -it was just quicker to write than 'co-same sort of very biblically centred theological conviction although with significant differences which in some ways make wgrgace and I more similiar in outlook despite that fact he is conservative and I am liberal-ist'
Posted by: wggrace
Monday 1 June 2009 - 10:17pm
I would hope that Clare was my co-religionist too, he said plaintively.
Posted by: Phil Almond
Monday 1 June 2009 - 06:21pm
To add to David H’s relevant post:
To answer ‘yes’ to the question ‘Is the wrath of God a punitive wrath which is final for the objects of that wrath unless they are delivered from it?’ does not imply a commitment to supralapsarianism.
Supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism, hypothetical universalism, evangelical arminianism, orthodox Roman Catholicism and possibly Eastern Orthodoxy should all, when they are true to themselves, answer ‘yes’ to that question.
Phil Almond
Posted by: Dave
Monday 1 June 2009 - 06:23am
Clare,
I thinks that you are rejecting superlapsarianism which is not all that may be meant by final, punative wrath. I wonder what you make of Hebrews 6:
4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
(The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Heb 6:3-6). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.)
Or must God save everyone, even against their will?
David
Posted by: Phil Almond
Sunday 31 May 2009 - 10:15pm
Clare
How do you understand
Luke 13:1-5
Luke 19:27
Matthew 13:36-43
Matthew 7:21-23
Matthew 25:40-46
2 Thessalonians 1:6-9
If you believe that God’s wrath is never a punitive wrath which is final with no possibility of it being removed?
‘…but listen to your co-religionists like wggrace and others on this and the cross/resurrection thread. please.’
But wggrace seems to be agreeing with me that the wrath of God is a punitive wrath which is final for the objects of that wrath unless they are delivered from it.
Phil Almond
Posted by: Clare
Sunday 31 May 2009 - 08:34pm
Phil, I have answered this before. Of course I do not believe in a final, punative wrath - such a notion is abhorrant. How could a God of love create creatures knowing they would sin and reject him and ultimately end up being punished forever? apart from being morally objectionable, it is also contradictory - however much you protest it is compatible with God stil being a God of love. Get literal about 1 cor 13 for a change - that describes what love is - and eternal punative wrath is the antithesis of what it describes.
on the cross/resurrection thread you write
I believe that there is an unbroken, unchanged, unmediated (by humans) chain of meaning and truth from the heart and mind of God and Christ to the words we find printed in our Bibles........this conviction rules out any explanation which breaks that chain of meaning' (my italics).
When my 9 year old son is being particularly charmless, he sticks his fingers in his hears and loudly screams 'la la la la la' - espeically if I am telling him something he does not want to hear. By your own admission above, your a priori convictions about how God's truth is shared with us mean that you wil not listen to anything that threatens that. This makes meaningful conversation with you very difficult.
which comes first, your conviction or the gospel. You keep on about the real God and real Jesus but how will you ever let them near you if you keep branishing your conviction like a stick - keeping all at bay who question it?
I am not expecting you to become a liberal Phil, but listen to your co-religionists like wggrace and others on this and the cross/resurrection thread. please.
Posted by: Deleted user 974
Sunday 31 May 2009 - 02:48am
Maybe it is Time for a reading of True Wilderness by HA Williams and his Hulsean Sermon in'Povert, Chastity, Obedience: The True Virtues.
Or is the Evangelical constituency just too arrogant these days ? Cocksure young men insulated at their computers as much as any war-game fantatics, perhaps ?
And Fr Williams just so passe (sorry no acute accent on my pc !).
Next I'll be wanting to encourage this generation of Evangelicals to read L'abandon ..............(Caussade)-- whtever next ? ....
Posted by: Phil Almond
Saturday 30 May 2009 - 08:43pm
Clare
We are back to the same questions. Who is the real Christ and what is the wrath of God?
I repeat:
I understand from Clare’s postings on Fulcrum that one of Clare’s convictions is that God’s wrath is never a punitive wrath which is final with no possibility of it being removed, but is ‘A therapeutic wrath’. No doubt if this understanding is an inexact summary of this conviction she will tell me.
On the assumption that this is a reasonable summary of this conviction, my case is that if certain passages in the New Testament are true, then this conviction of Clare’s is untrue. Some (by no means all) of these passages are:
Luke 13:1-5
Luke 19:27
Matthew 13:36-43
Matthew 7:21-23
Matthew 25:40-46
2 Thessalonians 1:6-9
I need to define what I mean by ‘true’. The gospel passages all attribute statements to Jesus Christ. By ‘true’ I mean that Jesus did make those statements, in whatever language he made them, and that whatever the process of translation, copying, etc. was, the meaning of Jesus’ original words and the meaning of Jesus’ original statements is accurately conveyed in the English we find in our English translations. The Thessalonians passage is from a letter of Paul. By ‘true’ I mean that Paul did write those words and that whatever the process of translation, copying, etc. was, the meaning of Paul’s original words and the meaning Paul’s original statements is accurately conveyed in the English we find in our English translations, and that Jesus and his angels will do the things stated and the things stated will happen to those who know not God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
On the assumption that these passages are true in the sense defined I invite Clare to acknowledge that her conviction, as outlined above in paragraph 2, is untrue. Please note that I am not asking Clare to acknowledge that her conviction is untrue. Only that it is untrue if the passages given are true in the sense defined.
Phil Almond
Posted by: Philip Mounstephen
Saturday 30 May 2009 - 11:43am
I remember once saying at a training event that if we valued the gospel more than the people we were sharing it with then we were not being faithful to the gospel. The thought came to me in a flash when I was mid-flow, and rather surprised me, but I believe it's profoundly true. If the gospel is about love for people then it makes no sense to love it more than the people we share it with.
Of course that doesn't mean we should value the gospel any the less as result: surely we should give infinite value both to people and the good news we share with them - because it is good news from God for them. If that makes me an Open Evangelical, then I guess I'm guilty as charged, and happy to be so..
Posted by: Roger Hurding
Friday 29 May 2009 - 02:42pm
Thanks Tim for your link to Cranmer’s Curate. How sad all this partisanship is! Here is one of CC’s statements:
‘Open Evangelicalism treats 'people skills' as more important than doctrinal faithfulness. Handling people wisely and winsomely is important, but not as important as faithfully and lovingly proclaiming God’s Word and indicating a clear practical intention to act on it in the reform of the local church for the sake of the Gospel.’
Why the tendency to polarize in this way, pitting, it seems, wisdom and winsomeness over against the supremacy of ‘doctrinal faithfulness’. Surely what is needed is faithfulness to God in Christ and through the Spirit. And surely the gospel is more truly commended as we seek to follow Jesus’ compassionate and searching ways with people. Here is the one who does not break a bruised reed or quench a smouldering wick, knows his sheep and is known by them, listens carefully, questions wisely and confronts without setting aside his love (as with the woman at the well).
As you say on the blog, Tim, let’s pursue unity without expecting uniformity. And surely the gospel is best served where Godly wisdom and the ‘winsome’ fruit of the Spirit is portrayed. To be lovingly winsome might win some….
Posted by: Peter Carrell
Friday 29 May 2009 - 12:19pm
The bit I didn't get about the Cranmer Curate's definition of Open Evangelicalism was this:
"Open Evangelicalism treats 'people skills' as more important than doctrinal faithfulness. Handling people wisely and winsomely is important, but not as important as faithfully and lovingly proclaiming Gods Word and indicating a clear practical intention to act on it in the reform of the local church for the sake of the Gospel."
Presumably there is a standard textbook or a confessional statement of Open Evangelicalism which lays this doctrine down with due propositional definitiveness. In which case a footnote would have been very helpful :)
Posted by: John Martin
Friday 29 May 2009 - 12:05pm
Thanks Tim for alerting us to the stuff from Cranmer's Curate. Steam exuded from my ears but I resisted the temptation to jump online immediately.
How easy it is (and how very human) to present viewpoints of people we don't agree with as straw, while putting the strongest case for our position?
Posted by: Roger Hurding
Friday 29 May 2009 - 10:31am
Thanks Mark for that piece on language, communication and epistemology and the inevitability of their link with the reality and value of experience.
I am a member of BIAPT and heartily endorse your recommendation.
Posted by: Mark Bennet
Thursday 28 May 2009 - 07:47pm
A couple of things to add to the developing sense of this thread.
The first is boring, in that I've posted it before, but it is simply the observation that language codes experience, has meaning because of common experiences and is meaningless without them - communication is a subtle thing, and we understand it biblically and theologically through Babel/Pentecost (language) and incarnation (which has non-linguistic, non-propositional aspects - God did not send a book or an argument but a Son).
Experience may be theologically suspect, and we may doubt the epistemological significance of experience, but we cannot avoid it because we are human and we try to communicate. The doctrine of sin has some interesting things to sat about God's communication with us, and how completely and accurately we receive it.
The second is presumptuous - for those interested in Practical/Pastoral Theology - do please investigate BIAPT which exists to develop this field (I am treasurer and we are always on the lookout for new members).
Posted by: Tim Goodbody
Thursday 28 May 2009 - 02:45pm
Changing the record a little, getting back to immediate content of the conference addresses, check this from Cranmer's Curate and the Ugley Vicar out but breathe slowly and peacefully before replying!
Tim
Posted by: Roger Hurding
Thursday 28 May 2009 - 02:21pm
Phil, where to begin?
Fundamentally, I suppose, we are back to just how we view the Scriptures, a point that David has raised with you on other threads. It seems to me that the Bible not only points to ‘word’ – whether through oral history or the written text – but it also points out into God’s creation. In the words of the Reformers, there is ‘general revelation’ as well as ‘special revelation’. To be truly biblical, I suggest, is to embrace both these rich aspects of our revealed faith. We see general revelation, for example, in the so-called ‘nature’ psalms (where, in Ps. 19, the first six verses engage with general revelation and the remaining verses with the special revelation of decrees, precepts and commandments), in the wisdom literature of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Job, in Isaiah and elsewhere in the OT. John 1:9 speaks of ‘the true light that gives light to everyone’; Acts 14:17 says that ‘God has not left himself without testimony’ in his provision for humanity; Romans 1:20 declares that they ‘are without excuse’ in the face of God’s self-revelation in the created order; and Romans 2:15 points to the presence of God’s law ‘written on’ the ‘hearts’ of unbelieving Gentiles. And Christ is the integration point of both general and special revelation: see Colossians 1:15-20.
It is with these perspectives in mind that I affirm davidheywood’s observations, and also Clare’s most recent post. God is abroad in his world and is full of surprises. As I said in my last post, he ‘readily subverts our certainties, partisanship and desire for cut and dried authority figures’. I am glad that you, Phil, are not ensnared by ‘the desire for cut and dried authority figures’, unlike those busy Corinthian Christians with their allegiances to Paul, Cephas, Apollos and, especially superior, Christ.
Although you and I are both seeking to be faithful to Scripture, I suspect we will not readily agree on the two areas you cite of sexuality and women’s ordained ministry. I am not convinced by the traditional interpretations with regard to gay relationships and women’s leadership. For example, Romans 1:18ff is often cited on the former and yet those verses can be seen as essentially an indictment against idolatry with a resulting series of degrees of depravity, which seem to included debased heterosexual as well as homosexual behaviour. And on the latter, the pages of the Bible are peppered with women’s voices and actions, many of them in leadership roles. Amongst others, we see Miriam, Deborah, Ruth, Naomi, Esther, the centrality of the women at Christ’s resurrection, Lydia, Priscilla (interesting how in Acts increasingly the order is Priscilla and Aquila, suggesting her dominance) and the number of women listed in Romans 16.
At least, Phil, concede there is a debate here.
Posted by: Clare
Thursday 28 May 2009 - 10:43am
um........ Phil, describing himself as humble......with the greatest of respect Phil, that's not a word that generally comes to mind when I read your posts! (or mine).
You make a clear distinction between people who use their experience (among other things) to interpret the bible and those like you who do not 'cloud' their judgement with such squishy and dubious phenomena, who claim to take their bible 'neat', as it were.
The problem here is that it is precisely your life experiences and personality traits that draw you to want to read the bible in this way. Your life experience, formed in part by your learning style but also by the nature of your relationships with authority figures in your childhood, tells you that in order to be trustworthy, something-in your case the bible-must be unquestioning authoritative in every aspect. You maintain this stance in the face of a plethora on internal contradictions in the bible and even when it means you are forced to believe that God sactioned ethnic cleansing and murder of children. Why? You are obviously intelligent but yet hang on to something that doesn't hang together at all. Your life experience is at work here, telling you that certainty is important above all else.
All humans interpret reality through the lens of their experience - there is no 'pure' unmediated access to reality. Some conservatives are completely unaware of this in themselves and see it solely in others. How dangerous. It is much more wholesome to admit the role of experieince in forming our convictions, beliefs and choices, and try and discern which experienced have been shaped by the Holy Spirit and which are our own damaged and distorted desires coming into play. This, as Job testifies, is a messy and uncertain process,which is why, on the basis of your life experience, you reject it.
The hermeneutical key for understanding the bible is not 'I am certain this is all true' but Christ. We encounter Christ, experientially as we read the bible, pray, take the sacraments, discuss with other Christians and reflect on our experiences. And you know what, sometimes we will get it wrong and believe things that aren't true. God doesn't mind -he promised to lead us into all truth, not that he would give as a package of the truth in one shot. God doesn't mind us being wrong, being wrong can be forgiven. It is however, really difficult for God to forgive those who are convinced they are right, because they do not see the need for forgiveness and believe they have got things all sewn up.
I hope this does not read as a personal attack - it is not meant to be. Plain talking and direct - yes. As I've said to you before Phil, I sometimes wonder if you've ever actually met with Christ yet? Let him touch you and undo your cherished desire for everything to be safely cut and dried, with no fuzzy edges. Let yourself be open to the vulnerable God who loves in in your vulnerability. Or will the protective armour of your experience-formed need for certainty get in the way? I pray that it does not.
Posted by: Phil Almond
Tuesday 26 May 2009 - 10:08pm
Roger Hurding and davidheywood
I listened to Jane Morris’ address on this website and would like to make an observation on your recent posts in the light of what she said. This is what I understood her to say in summary on the Women-in-authority question and on the Sexuality question. On the sexuality question the teaching of the Bible is clear from cover to cover: sexual intercourse is for man-woman marriage only; this is a first order issue. The women-in-authority issue is not clear from the Bible and she wants to keep in the same Church those who think it is in line with the will of God and those who think it is against the will of God; we will find out who is right in heaven. I agree with her on the sexuality question. I disagree with her on the women-in-authority question; I think the Bible is clear that women in authority over men is clearly ruled out by the Bible and therefore is against the will of God.
But the significant thing is that I don’t remember her appealing to experience: she appealed to the Bible.
davidheywood said of Forward in Faith and Reform, ‘Neither has so far been willing to engage with the experience of ordained women's ministry with the aim of discerning the presence of God in experience’. No, because they believe that the Bible (and tradition in the case of FiF) clearly rules out ordination of women.
The same argument from experience is being used as you know to come up with an answer on the sexuality question which would make sexual relations between lifelong same-sex partners in line with the will of God.
Are you OK with that? Are there any cases in principle where you would reject the ‘discerning the presence of God in experience’ on the basis of what the Bible (or Tradition) says?
Davidheywood’s ‘To engage with experience, however, would be a potential threat to one or more groups of leaders, whose influence relies on the authority of their particular style of interpretation’ and Roger’s ‘I agree, God is at large in his world and readily subverts our certainties, partisanship and desire for cut and dried authority figures’ is generally unfair. The motive of such leaders, and of individuals like myself who have a passionate belief in the humble, self-critical and God-fearing exercise of what Ryle called the ‘right, duty and necessity’ of private judgment is, in most cases, to tremble at the word of God, not to maintain personal influence or to have cut and dried authority figures.
Phil Almond
Posted by: Roger Hurding
Tuesday 26 May 2009 - 10:35am
Thank you davidheywood for your discerning post, with which I heartily agree. I taught practical theology and pastoral counselling at Trinity College, Bristol, as a visiting lecturer for twenty years, and often made the point that conservative evangelicalism, in particular, tends to plumb for a cognitve/behavioural and deductive approach to scripture, whereas more ‘open’ and so-called ‘liberal’ approaches tend to include, more readily, the metaphorical, symbolic, experiential and, in general, inductive handling of the bible.
I’m glad too you mentioned Job, having just finished David Ford’s excellent book, Christian Wisdom: Desiring God and Learning in Love. He too brings out well Job’s struggle with and over God’s mysterious ways and the way the experience of suffering and the unanswered questions shape Job’s understanding, humbling and restoration.
I agree, God is at large in his world and readily subverts our certainties, partisanship and desire for cut and dried authority figures.
Posted by: Deleted user 2035
Monday 25 May 2009 - 02:16pm
I was also present at the conference at New Malden and appreciated the talks from Hugh Palmer, Jane Morris and Adrain Chatfield.
I teach at Ripon College Cuddesdon, one of five members of staff who might describe themselves as evangelicals of various colours. Our students are drawn from a wide corss-section of the Church, from traditional Anglo-catholics to charismatic evangelicals, and this contributes to what the bishops' inspectors have recently described as a 'thriving institution' with a 'rich community life'. One of the privileges of this position is to see God at work in ordinands across the spectrum of churchmanship and theology; another is to share in a rich theological interchange.
I would like to make two observations about evangelical culture. First, in common with some catholics, we tend to be found towards the more authoritarian end of the spectrum. We have a pecking order of recognised leaders - local, national and international - and a reange of recognised 'streams' within which these leaders carry influence. Our teaching styles tend to be didactic, by which I mean that there is an expectation that people will believe what the teacher says on the basis of his or her authority, and we are not very good at teaching methods that encourage people to think for themselves. At Cuddesdon, when we have had visiting presenters from other colleges, this style quickly strikes our students as inauthentic.
The second observation is related to the first and it is about the way we do theology. Part of my role as Director of Pastoral Studies involves teaching 'practical theology': the way our understanding of God is moulded by reflection on experience. A biblical paradigm for practical theology is found in the middle chapters of Acts, where first Stephen then Peter and then Paul were led to preach the gospel first to Samaritans and then Gentiles and saw God unmistakeably at work. Their experience required them to think about the way they had previously interpreted the Old Testament Scriptures and there were intensive discussion and 'no small dissension and debate' (Acts 15;2) as together they sought, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to bring their theology in line with what God was clearly doing. A biblical example of a group who refused to engage in practical theology is the Pharisees or 'the Jews' in John's Gospel. In the Old Testament we find Job's comforters arguing from received authority while Job contens that experience refutes their comfortable certainties and seeks for a deeper vision of God. The theological assumptions behind this mode of doing theology include the belief that all the world is God's rather than merely a 'sacred' section of it and that the Holy Spirit will generally be found out ahead of the Church and calling us to follow him in God's mission.
The alternative to practical theology is to deduce doctrine from received authority and apply the outcome in a one-way fashion to pastoral practice. The more authoritarian the mind-set the more this will seem the right and natural thing to do. The problem is that it requires us to 'first choose our authority'. Forward in Faith oppose the ordination of women on the basis of tradition and the influence of the Roman Catholic Church; Reform on the received interpretation of certain passages of Scripture. Neither has so far been willing to engage with the experience of ordained women's ministry with the aim of discerning the presence of God in experience.
To engage with experience, however, would be a potential threat to one or more groups of leaders, whose influence relies on the authority of their particular style of interpretation. Thus, our preference for a deduction/application style of theology based on a comparitively authoritarian mind-set boxes us into corners and makes disunity inevitable.
Posted by: Phil Almond
Friday 22 May 2009 - 09:25pm
I congratulate Fulcrum on making the proceedings of the ‘Spirituality of Unity’ Conference available on the Web so quickly.
Graham King has given us (19 May) 3 ‘gems’ from the morning addresses. Here are two significant paraphrased points from Adrian in the panel discussion:
‘Anglicanism is not a via media or defined by lex orandi lex credendi, rather it is a doctrinally based form of Christianity: creeds and first four councils as understood and expressed in 39 articles which perhaps we need to go back to more than we do. So in a sense it is easy to know when to pull up the drawbridge’
‘Glad about different tribes: richness. But even where disagreements should not bury them. Tiptoeing a bit too much. Good to have much more rigorous discussion’
And a word form Ian Paul’s Bible reading: ‘Integrity’ which Jim Packer described somewhere (as I recall) as a ‘self-conscious modern word’ but which I think is a good word.
Article 9, among other things, offers a view of the state before God of every human being since the fall of Man. Let’s do what Adrian suggested and have a rigorous discussion, with integrity, on this forum on:
What does Article 9 mean and does part of it mean that all human beings since the fall are the objects of God’s wrath by the mere fact of being born?
Do we all agree that Article 9 is true?
Graham, Adrian, Jane, Hugh, Ian: are you up for such a debate?
John Martin has drawn attention to an elephant in the room which was not mentioned. I would like to point out the mammoth in the room which was not mentioned: Tom Wright’s views on salvation. No, that’s not quite true: Hugh Palmer did mention his name and perhaps Ian Paul’s
‘Or perhaps that should read, James is less connected with a Lutheran Paul, read through modernist spectacles which are grubby with fingerprints caused by careless handling and rather scratched and cracked from bumping into too many post-modern objections. (This is not a dig at a particular tribe, but it simply one example of the truth that our thinking about Scripture is always more colonised by the values of the world than we like to imagine—and that is true for all of us in different ways.)’
was a reference to them, or perhaps not.
As many may know, Gerald Bray’s editorial in the Summer 2009 Churchman gave an account of the Wright/Piper debate. I am not concerned with whether Gerald Bray’s account is accurate. Rather I would like to ask Hugh, Jane, Adrian, Graham, Ian: if the Bishop is right and John Piper is wrong, what are the implications. Can you look back with equanimity on the gospel addresses you have given and the way you have understood and applied the gospel to your own heart and to others for all these years? Is this debate really just a nuanced erudite discussion among scholars? If you can’t and if it isn’t then why on earth was the subject not brought up and discussed?
Phil Almond
Posted by: John Martin
Thursday 21 May 2009 - 03:59pm
One amusing aside from the Fulcrum Conference was Hugh Palmer commenting how various bloggers predicted that he would be rebuking Fulcrum for its part in evangelical divisions.
One of the besetting sins of evangelicals is that when we meet in public we are generally so polite that festering boils don't get lanced.
The appearance of Fulcrum has changed that a bit, as evidenced by various bits of the journalism leading to the 'NEAC' at All Souls Langham Place and what happened on the day.
If there was a weakness at the latest Fulcrum Conference (and I have shared this with fellow members of the Leadership Team) it was that it didn't really address the "Elephant in the Room" i.e. GAFCON and all it stands for.
But we did get a lot of people together and there was good conversation (public and private) and we can build on that.
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Thursday 21 May 2009 - 03:57pm
Nersen
It was not a personal attack. It was an amusing comment about the nature of AM as an organisation. I happen to think it was about right. I think their views are dreadful, extreme, and absolutely not mainstream, however much they claim to be so. What they stand for is very offensive to gay Christians - with their insistence on maximising demonisation and polarisation (Christians over here, gay people over there) in post after post. They claim not to be obsessed with this issue - but an analysis of any month's postings at random will show how this is simply not the case.
They delight in promoting news of some very right-wing of american anti-gay organisations (NOM for instance) as if this were somehow the centre ground. They are very combative. Read the Changing Attitude blog for how Colin Coward was fairly aggressively challenged (or so he claims) at ACC 14 Jamaica recently by Chris Sugden and David Virtue. So much for any listening process - or thinking the best of people.
If this were any other minority being treated to this kind of attack I think you would be shocked. Try doing the mental translation. And you get antsy about a little joke at their expense. Please!
How very different from what was depicted as going on at Spring Harvest this year.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Thursday 21 May 2009 - 03:37pm
I don't mind criticisms of AM or any other evangelical group, Adrian...particularly when they have a good basis in scripture and the group might learn something from those criticisms. I don't mind robust discussions.... those can expose the weak foundations of certain positions when politeness may let some very unconvincing positions stand. But, I don't think one can reasonably both call for censorship of posts on the basis that they contain attacks etc and also make attacks......
You have been very critical of Fulcrum over the recent months. You have criticised the recent Fulcrum conference. I have not objected to you doing that....just not found your criticisms convincing and not understood why you think evangelical Anglicans should follow your advice (mostly because your starting point re the authority of scripture in irreconcilable with evangelicalism). Regardless, I am pleased for the greater evangelical unity we saw at the Fulcrum conference.... it is not surprising that does not impress pluralists or liberals, but it is good for CofE evangelicals.... and, I think, for the CofE.
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Thursday 21 May 2009 - 01:53pm
Nersen wants the freedom to behave according to the label. If the label of a group falls within the evangelical nexus, then it ought not to be criticised, but if the label falls outside (e.g. "Adrian, a pluralist") then the argument does not need to be considered as the label can be dismissed up front.
None of that tackles that argument. The argument about Anglican and Mainstream is the argument that it's not particularly Anglican (when push comes to shove) and definitely not mainsteam in terms of the breadth of Anglicanism. By its associations we get some proof of this, in that the FCA documents and activity are being applied with ease at the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland does not uphold threefold ministry, part of the Lambeth Chicago Quadrilateral. Now it looks fairly clear that threefold ministry is not that big an issue for the FCA in its extension of tackling issues in the Church of Scotland.
Argument supplied by Pluralist, a pluralist.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Thursday 21 May 2009 - 11:27am
Jeremy, I would have expected you to argue we should be tolerant of groups like AM rather than being entertained by sniping comments re Anglican Mainstream......however, it was an attack which was personal in nature (against the AM people, asserting they were not really Anglican and that they were some sort of fringe) and it did not advance the discussion on the thread it was posted ...... liddon says he does not like that sort of post......
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Thursday 21 May 2009 - 10:06am
no Nersen - I laughed out loud at that - liddon entertained!
Posted by: nersenpaul
Thursday 21 May 2009 - 07:08am
liddon - do you mean posts like the one from you below?
Posted by: liddon Tuesday 28 April 2009 - 11:19am The conference was organized by Anglican Mainstream. Driving with my daughter one da, we passed somewhere called the 'Quality Inn'. My daughter pointed out that any product or service which felt the need to use 'quality' in its name probably wasn't. I think the same goes for 'Anglican' and 'Mainstream'.
Posted by: liddon
Wednesday 20 May 2009 - 05:58pm
Please may I ask the moderators of this site to consider only accepting posts which either advance the discussion or make an entertaining point? Could personal attacks be weeded out?
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Wednesday 20 May 2009 - 05:46pm
The sociology of knowledge is about why we think how we think in relation to economic systems, culture, technology. What baffles me, listening to these 'unity' speeches and answers to questions is how any of that, and a willingness to pull up the drawbridge, relates to the present boundaries of the sociology of knowledge. It's like inhabiting a past world: this is normative and that's it, and anyone who disagrees is not a member of my gang. OK, but it amounts to being uncommunicative beyond indeed your tribe.
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Wednesday 20 May 2009 - 05:38pm
Trying to be faithful means trying to be reliable and truthful in the face of the other person.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Wednesday 20 May 2009 - 08:33am
"faithful" to what, Adrian? No doubt, you are faithful to your own views, ideas and your own principles......
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Tuesday 19 May 2009 - 06:25pm
Thanks Liddon - it's all about what you call being faithful, I think, and it doesn't mean speakers of your own particular language.
Good idea about the Albert Hall, but I prefer bus stops and buses, ralways stations and trains, and people's houses too - like this (Tuesday) evening discussing this, which I wrote for the occasion:
http://www.vary.freeuk.com/learning/relthink/theologypaper09.pdf
Posted by: liddon
Tuesday 19 May 2009 - 02:58pm
Hi Adrian, I appreciate your posts on this, and on other matters. As you and Nersen seem to be involved in a numbers game (though you each have different rules for this game) I thought I would point out that there was a large crowd at the foot of the cross, but only Our Lady and Saint John were there on the Lord's side. Equally, large crowds had gathered to hear Jesus and to be fed by him, but they also found it better to be elsewhere when he was crucified. Numbers are odd things.
Posted by: John Martin
Tuesday 19 May 2009 - 02:20pm
I seriously dislike the 'drawbridge' metaphor. For a start the whole idea is outmoded. More to the point, I've always wanted to emphasise the need to be 'centred' on Christ rather than trying to draw boundaries.
In group discussions at the Fulcrum Conference I shared a metaphor which I think is more helpful.
At the turn of the nineteenth century my great-gandfather carved a farm out of the Australian wilderness. There was no money for boundary fences but he sunk a huge waterhole. Cattle and sheep were free to wander but in practice they never strayed out of range of the water. Their life depended on keeping within range.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Tuesday 19 May 2009 - 02:08pm
Thanks, Pluralist and Nersen. I don't think unity is based on 'pulling up the drawbridge' either - especially when you have to claim expenses to clean the moats...
There were many gems in the morning addresses including the following:
'For Christian unity, are we big enough to be small enough?' Hugh Palmer
'Why don't we trying talking people up behind their backs?' Jane Morris
'Thirdly, there were boundaries, and though we often walked right up to them, we knew that there were limits.' Adrian Chatfield
Posted by: nersenpaul
Tuesday 19 May 2009 - 11:17am
Adrian.... why don't you set up a conference.... I am sure you will be able to show Fulcrum how things ought to be done, given you know so much about what interests people in wider society etc ....... perhaps The Royal Albert Hall would be a suitable venue for your conference?
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Tuesday 19 May 2009 - 03:00am
Well on this occasion the cracked record makes my point: an event for evangelical Christians. A very internal affair. But my general point is informed by sociology of religion, which informs me that whilst I might write about the general population it won't be reading what I write either, because of its organised religion subject matter. But I'm not deluded, not deluded by numbers nor by something called unity which is based on pulling up a drawbridge.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Monday 18 May 2009 - 04:13pm
Adrian - not sure why you want to run down the conference or talks but do you see any irony in you writing, "But the point is, no one else is really that interested in your castle…” So, you know what people are are interested in...... I guess you must have hundreds and thousands interested in your musings, in that case. You may find the Fulcrum conference talks not to be your cup of tea....but could that be because they are for evangelical Anglicans and not pluralists?
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Monday 18 May 2009 - 01:30pm
Just as an outside perspective (and these talks confirmed that I have an outside perspective from this stance) the only talk I found interesting was the final Bible study one, and even that, I must say, had a sense of being pretentious about it. Obviously I don't know about the ethos of this gathering, and it is difficult to tell from sound only, but it seemed very 'internal' to yourselves, like members in the Labour Party deciding who else in the Labour Party they will pull up the drawbridge from. But the point is, no one else is really that interested in your castle - you could keep the drawbridge down and they are still busy in the nearby town.
I'm presenting a paper tomorrow evening about Essays and Reviews of 1860, one of those times when theology came out of academia into the wider world, and when there was still a connection. Obviously many of the ideas of Jowett and company at that time no longer translate well to now, because there is no assumed uniform outlook in society or in knowledge, but such ideas require creative updating. OK it was interesting to hear these views and the questions and answers, but you are just talking to yourselves and it does sound obsessional (including about Jesus, and Jesus with his death). I'm just more interested, with some analysis, what it means to reach people's religiosity and concerns.
http://www.vary.freeuk.com/learning/relthink/theologypaper09.pdf
Posted by: Graham Kings
Saturday 16 May 2009 - 08:34pm
We had a very encouraging Fulcrum Conference today at Christ Church New Malden. The texts of the addresses, and audio files of the addresses and of the panel discussion, are available on the Fulcrum Conference page, here.
Many thanks to all those who hosted, gave talks and participated, and to Chris Took, Fulcrum web manager, for uploading the texts and audio files by lunchtime! One address will be transcribed in full soon - it is online in note form at the moment.
Many thanks for your prayers.
Posted by: George Day
Friday 15 May 2009 - 10:02pm
Sorry, I can't make the conference tomorrow. Greetings to all who do make it.
Posted by: Dave
Friday 15 May 2009 - 05:24pm
Phil,
I doubt that there will be time for these issues. There is more than enough which is directly relevant to unity in e.g. Ephesians 4...
I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
(ESV) for one day
David
Posted by: Roger Hurding
Friday 15 May 2009 - 09:40am
Yes, Nersen, I agree with you in your bid for unity and your affirmation of Fulcrum’s agenda. May tomorrow be a time of true unity in the Spirit and may the fruits of the day spill over into our churches and the wider community.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Friday 15 May 2009 - 08:32am
I hope the conference is a great time of unity-building amongst evangelicals (not your greatest skill, Phil!) .... it is great that the speakers represent different types of evangelicals but will work together tomorrow. Recently, we saw GAFCON leaders like Stephen Noll supporting the Ridley draft..... I hope Fulcrum and ACI leaders will give GAFCON more support from now on as unity based on scritpure is more important than insitutional unity.
There are great grounds for building unity between open, conservative and charismatic evangelical Anglicans. Not enough of that work has been done in the last decade...... there is division and a need for repentance (even from the apparently cuddlier "open" evangelicals) but I think Fulcrum has done a great thing by inviting different types of evangelicals to speak at the conference, this is a signal of a greater desire for unity. I value the work of Wright and Nazir-Ali, Noll and Radner, Kings and Sugden..... all of these, with different approaches, need to be united as there is no difference on the core issues...and all that matters in the end are the core issues including the authority of scripture, not the church politics or loyalty to an institutoin or an ABC. If we are divided, we will, as in the last few decades and even today, be ruled by a minority with very different priorities.... and it will be our fault for remaining divided.
Thank you, Fulcrum, for a unity-building list of speakers.
Posted by: Phil Almond
Thursday 14 May 2009 - 08:20pm
Presumably Hugh Palmer is at the Sprituality of Unity Conference to give a ‘conservative’ perspective. I wonder whether he will challenge ‘open’ evangelicals on what they believe about the wrath of God and Christ’s propitiation and on whether they believe that the Bible is God’s direct disclosure to the soul, true for God and true for man, and that God and Christ did say/are saying/will say, did do/ are doing/ will do all that the Bible says? I hope he presses the point that common convictions on these supremely important truths are vital foundations of ‘Spiritual Unity’.
Phil Almond
Posted by: Graham Kings
Wednesday 6 May 2009 - 08:37am
Looking forward to seeing people at our Fulcrum Conference London on Saturday 16 May 2009, 10.00am-4.00pm at Christ Church, New Malden with speakers, Hugh Palmer, Jane Morris and Adrian Chatfield on the theme 'Spirituality of Unity'.
Full details, here.
People are continuing to sign up online - there is still time to do so here.
Posters are here.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Wednesday 1 April 2009 - 03:04pm
We have just published some posters and fliers for the Fulcrum Conference London on Saturday 16 May 2009, 10.00am-4.00pm.
Click here to choose which you prefer before downloading them.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Wednesday 11 March 2009 - 07:22am
While I don't expect people to agree with everything CC says, it is worth standing back and examining ourselves (all wings, not just Fulcrum) - he gives a useful challenge for everyone who is serious about evangelical unity. We all need to be honest about what we have done which has not helped build unity and what we have done which has actually destroyed evangelical unity. Fulcrum is not above criticism....same goes for AM and CC too. If we want unity, we all have to start with repentance ourselves where it is necessary and not from a basic position of it being others who are responsible for evangelical disunity. I think Fulcrum should respond very positively to CC.... he is engaging with the conference's agenda of unity and pointing to something important which Fulcrum needs to consider - as do other evangelical groups....if we are serious about unity.
Posted by: Michael
Tuesday 10 March 2009 - 08:14pm
Julian Mann was trying to insist on a golden age of Classic Evangelicalism which never ever existed. There has always been diversity.
A good example was when the more conservative Record refused to publish an article against slavery in 1833 just before the successful bill. It was promptly published by the Christian Observor and one notes the glee of the editor S C Wilks.
I also replied and stressed that it is only recently that things like Inerrancy have come to the fore.
However we are much more polite than evangelicals in the 1830s who call each other infidels or that one shouldnt answer a fool according to their folly.
Michael
Posted by: Tim Goodbody
Tuesday 10 March 2009 - 09:31am
Cranmer's curate has some rather inflammatory comments on his blog about the conference. I have tried to show restraint in my comment, may I invite others to do the same
Tim
Posted by: nersenpaul
Thursday 5 March 2009 - 07:16am
THanks for your reply, Phil - I am not sure what posts you mean but I hope you agree that the Fulcrum statements ( like those of the ACI) have an obviously evangelical, high view of scripture?
Posted by: Phil Almond
Wednesday 4 March 2009 - 10:11pm
Nersen
I was not referring to contributions to Fulcrum by Clare or Pluralist or liddon or L Roberts but to contributions by Jody, Ian Paul, Graham Kings. On the basis of those contributions I stand by my post that there is a distinct possibility that the differences between Fulcrum and me (I won't speak for anyone else) are very vital and very fundamental.
Phil Almond
Posted by: Deleted user 974
Wednesday 4 March 2009 - 08:26pm
'agreement in truth' - if you think Truth or even truth can be listed (shopping-list style) then you don't (yet) know (of) it. That's my sense of it ...
Posted by: Deleted user 974
Wednesday 4 March 2009 - 03:32pm
Our Lord said that if we only greet our compatriots and similars then something is lacking in spirituality. I think it would be a great shame if Evangelicals put great time and energy into -- erm -- pan-Evangelical unity !
A vigorous and vibrant spiritulaity will be reaching out to Others
Posted by: nersenpaul
Wednesday 4 March 2009 - 11:17am
Phil - I agree completely that unity must be based on agreement re truth. I don't think you should take contributions on this blog to represent "open" evangelicals or Fulcrum....anyone can post (even people who are not Christian can post)....
The Fulcrum leadership's statements do represent Fulcrum and I think those statements show that "open" and "conservative" evangelicals are not really very different when it comes to the authority of scripture and how we live out our faith. Based on the Fulcrum leadership's statements, I think conservatives can support Fulcrum's efforts to build evangelical unity as we are not really in dispute about what is true and what is false.... do you not agree?
Posted by: Phil Almond
Tuesday 3 March 2009 - 08:31pm
‘Fulcrum Conference London 2009
Spirituality of Unity
Given the strains and stresses among Evangelical Anglicans, the conference will provide an important opportunity to explore the spirituality that undergirds our unity together and ways to handle difference on the basis of that unity. Speakers are drawn from the different streams of Evangelical Anglicanism’
This statement makes the assumption that there is a ‘spirituality that undergirds our unity together’. And of course, if we are all Christians, objectively, in the sight of God, then we are all united with God in Christ and with each other. But the ‘strains and stresses’ and the differences are about ‘what are the truths of Christianity?’. It is vital to keep this question distinct from the closely related question ‘who are the Christians?’ because, as I keep saying, it is possible for people who are Christians, objectively, in the sight of God, to believe things which are ruled out by Christianity and to refuse to believe things which are among Christianity’s vital truths. The only way forward ‘to handle difference’ is to be painfully and thoroughly frank and honest about the different views on ‘what are the truths of Christianity’ as we explore how fundamental and vital those differences are. No impartial observer of Fulcrum and other debates between ‘open’ and ‘conservative’ evangelicals can be in any doubt that there is a distinct possibility that the differences are very vital and very fundamental.
Phil Almond
Posted by: George Day
Thursday 26 February 2009 - 05:31pm
The discussion about whether there is a north-south problem and about the location of the conference reminds me that occasionally there has been mention of local groupings of Fulcrum supporters - occasional mention, but nothing further ever seems to happen. Could I ask whether this has been discussed or investigated by the leadership? Would it be feasible, or are supporters too thinly scattered to make it worthwhile? Would other Fulcrum members welcome knowing who else was reasonably local to them, or do we all have more than enough networks already?
Posted by: Graham Kings
Tuesday 24 February 2009 - 06:45am
Many thanks indeed for your comments, Kevin. Looking forward to your email.
Posted by: Kevin Ellis
Monday 23 February 2009 - 10:11pm
Thanks Graham,
I will make a considered response privately. A more knee jerk one is that is that I find is sad that all the names on your Leadership pages, with the exception of Ian are southern based... and wonder whether this needs addressing.
I will endeavour to book into the conference, but you do need to accept for some of us this will entail not only the minimal costs of the conference, but finding of cover. Realistically, I will not be back in central London until 5:30ish and then have a 5-6 hour journey ahead of me. I realise that this special pleading given the distances involved... and wonder whether you might consider a mid-week conference rather than a Saturday one in future
I want to add that Fulcrum is a fantastic resource, but when it moves from the web into meeting physically, it could be done a little closer.
Kevin
Posted by: Roger Harper
Monday 23 February 2009 - 09:45pm
Please can we have more detail of what this Conference is about? For instance publishing the brief sent to the speakers would be helpful.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Monday 23 February 2009 - 12:52pm
Thanks, Kevin and Nersen. Yes, we are very conscious of the difficulties of geography and travel. We had a Fulcrum Conference in the North in June last year in Bradford and we would be open to suggestions for this year. The local organiser is a key post and the timing and theme are important considerations.
People are free to contact the leadership team through the web site with offers or suggestions.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Monday 23 February 2009 - 11:51am
Given the conference is focussing on UNITY, it would be a shame if the North and South of England were divided.... perhaps there could be a webcast so those who could not get a train or coach down to London can join in this important conference?
(perhaps a more central location in London would also help people to get to it more easily?)
Posted by: Kevin Ellis
Sunday 22 February 2009 - 07:50pm
any further plans for a Fulcrum North Conference for those of us who are geographically challenged... and are 6 hours away from the Capital.
sometimes it really does seem that for some evangelicalism exists not outside of the South and South East
Kevin
Posted by: Graham Kings
Tuesday 17 February 2009 - 09:45pm
We have just published details of 'Fulcrum Conference London: Spirituality of Unity', which will be held on Saturday 16 May 2009, 10.00-4.00pm, at Christ Church, New Malden.
For a map, click here. To book, click here. It greatly helps us if you book via the web. Cost £15 (theological students £8).
Our three speakers in the morning, 'Spirituality of Unity: Three Perspectives', are:
Hugh Palmer, Rector of All Souls' Langham Place, London
Jane Morris, Vicar of St Gabriel's, Cricklewood, London
Adrian Chatfield, Director of the Simeon Centre for Spirituality, Ridley Hall, Cambridge
Our afternoon session, 'Spirituality of Unity in Practice', will be in groups facilitated by Phil Stone, Vicar of St Mark's Kensal Rise, London, followed by a Bible Study by Ian Paul, Dean of Studies, St John's College, Nottingham, editor of Grove Books and on the Fulcrum leadership team.
Given the strains and stresses among Evangelical Anglicans, the conference will provide an important opportunity to explore the spirituality that undergirds our unity together and ways to handle difference on the basis of that unity. Speakers are drawn from the different streams of Evangelical Anglicanism.
Looking forward to seeing many people there.
Add your comments on the Fulcrum Forum
|
|
Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill
Commons Report and Third Reading Briefing. CofE Website, 19 May 2013
Posted today
Tory rebellion on amendment to grant civil partnerships to heterosexual couples will 'cost οΎ£4bn and take two years' Guardian Online, 19 May 2013
Posted today
Top public schools have put it in their curricula and David Cameron has even set out to measure it, now churches are embarking on a drive to teach happiness to the nation. Telegraph 18 May 2013
18 May 2013
WORSHIP
1. The bells of the Church of St.Peter and St.Paul, Tonbridge in Kent- BBC Radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01shqss
2. Whit Sunday Worship from Emmanuel Church Didsbury - BBC Radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes...
Bowman
Thanks for the kind comments. It wasn't my specific intention to cast new light on "kephale", especially as I really am no expert at all on Greek (or on any of this, to be honest). Before getting carried away, it's probably best for me to say I think the e...
It has always struck me as worse than perverse that I attended church for decades but only encountered basic useful tested instruction about how to live with these curious minds we have in a course I took at Harvard. After all, you can't easily open a Bible at a random page that does not, as ...
John Martin reviews Andrew Goddard's timely memoire of the Archiepiscopate of Rowan Williams
Andrew Goddard offers a positive assessment of the recent FAOC document
A comment on the most controversial funeral of the century.......
|
