|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/424
Fulcrum Subjects: Sexuality / Anglicanism, Windsor Process Other articles by Andrew Goddard are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 11 comments on this article
Church of Scotland Tensions & GAFCONby Andrew Goddard
The current casus belli
The focus of the current dispute is the appointment of the Kirk’s equivalent of Gene Robinson – The Revd Scott Rennie.[1] Apart from the significant difference that the Church of Scotland is a staunchly non-episcopal body (and so Scott Rennie is not being made a bishop, simply a parish minister), the parallels are quite astonishing. He is in an open same-sex partnership (and has made clear he will live with his parter, David, in the manse) having previously been married, in which marriage he had a daughter. He, like Gene Robinson, has sadly been falsely accused (by some of those opposed to his appointment who have now publicly apologised), of leaving his wife for his current partner when in fact he only entered his relationship with David some time after his marriage ended. Indeed, as with Gene Robinson, his wife is fully supportive of Scott Rennie and his appointment. Having served in the church for some time (at Brechin Cathedral, during which time he was in the relationship now at the heart of the controversy), Rennie was duly elected and welcomed by his new parish (Queen’s Cross Parish Church, Aberdeen) in November 2008 and by the wider Aberdeen Presbytery in January this year. He had the support of 86% of the congregation and the overwhelming backing (60-24) of the presbytery.
The General Assembly, May 2009
However, a dozen of those opposed to his appointment exercised their right to appeal against the decision (reportedly a unique event since the Disruption of 1843) and this has now been referred to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the denomination’s supreme body. This will decide the case in just over a week's time on the evening of May 23rd. It is claimed that this is the first time a Church of Scotland ordained minister has openly declared himself to be living in a same-sex partnership. As a result, the Assembly’s decision is being seen as a test-case with parallels to the Righter case in the Episcopal Church of the USA (ECUSA) in which conservative bishops took Bishop Righter to court for ordaining an openly gay-partnered man (and lost, with the court judging the action did not contravene core doctrine).[2]
The Assembly also now has a motion (technically called an Overture) before it from the Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye. This reaffirms traditional teaching and asks the Assembly to affirm “that this Church shall not accept for training, ordain, admit, re-admit, induct or introduce to any ministry of the Church anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of faithful marriage between a man and a woman”.
There are thus two distinct but related issues before the Assembly – the particular individual case of Scott Rennie (which as with Gene Robinson’s election is also tied into the question of the freedom and rights of parishes and presbyteries to call ministers) and the matter of policy and principle. Given their obvious interconnection, the question as to which of these should take priority in the Assembly’s deliberations is itself a significant political decision.
Earlier conflict over blessing civil partnerships
This controversy about an openly partnered gay clergyman follows on from the earlier conflict over the church’s response to civil partnerships in 2006. Then, the General Assembly appeared to align the Church of Scotland with a more revisionist position. This was because it approved a motion that would have ensured that anyone conducting a service to mark a civil partnership would not be disciplined, and that they could do this in a parish other than their own although they also stated that nobody would be obliged to perform such a service. Those opposed to this development triggered the constitutional mechanism (under the Barrier Act) whereby the Assembly decision required approval by the presbyteries to come into force. The presbyteries overwhelmingly rejected the motion (only 9 supporting, 36 opposed) although the total votes cast each way was much narrower (1007 for, 1563 against).[3] Unsurprisingly, Aberdeen presbytery was the third highest in support of the motion allowing blessings (73% to 27%) whereas Lochcarron & Skye recorded the highest vote against (94% with only 1 brave individual voicing support for the Assembly decision).
Church of Scotland political networks
A key group behind overturning that Assembly decision was Forward Together – a broad coalition of evangelicals within the Church of Scotland. Opposing their stance was a new network - OneKirk - which is the Church of Scotland’s equivalent to Inclusive Church – and Affirmation Scotland, similar to Changing Attitude in the Church of England. In the last few weeks, however, a new body has appeared online which will immediately have echoes for Anglicans. It is called the Fellowship of Confessing Churches with the strapline ‘meaningful unity between gospel congregations’. As its initial action, it has launched a statement - which it has asked people to sign online and which has the support of Forward Together - about the coming General Assembly. This statement is in support of those objecting from Aberdeen and of the overture from Lochcarron-Skye.
The statement warns that the Church of Scotland is on the verge of “an unprecedented departure from both the Kirk’s supreme standard, the Scriptures, and its subordinate standard, the Westminster Confession of Faith, by its highest court, this would inevitably force a crisis of communion. The majority of congregations of the Church of Scotland have no wish so to depart from orthodox Christian faith and practice, nor to be in fellowship with those who would so abandon the true Church of Jesus Christ”. It ends “We further wish to affirm our continuing solidarity in fellowship with Christian churches worldwide who hold and maintain the historic faith, doctrine, and discipline of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church, once for all delivered to the saints in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments”.
Within two weeks the statement already has over 10,000 signatories with approaching 4500 from the Church of Scotland (including nearly 400 ministers – the Kirk has nearly 1000 active ministers), nearly 2500 from other Christians in Scotland, about 2000 from elsewhere in the UK and a slightly smaller number from other parts of the world. The full list of signatories (from which a Mr A Bigot was apparently recently removed!) is available online. It includes people from almost every conceivable denomination (including many well-known evangelicals from the Church of England such as Chris Sugden, Paul Perkin, Hugh Palmer, Vaughan Roberts) as well as significant evangelical theologians (e.g. Ian Provan, Andy McGowan, Stephen Williams, Hans Boersma, Don Carson and Bruce Hindmarsh).
The influence of GAFCON & Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
The name of the new group with its reference to a “confessing fellowship” points to the influence of GAFCON and its Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA). The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) met in Jerusalem in June 2008, convened by a number of orthodox Anglican Primates and leaders from North America and England. It issued the Jerusalem Statement and formed a Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in order to take a stand against what it described as a “false gospel” within the Anglican Communion.[4]
So far I have not seen the links between the new Church of Scotland movement and GAFCON/FCA being highlighted but it is clear that in part the Fellowship of Confessing Churches is a sign of GAFCON’s influence extending beyond the Anglican Communion and other Anglican groupings and that the connection runs quite deep.
The heart of the new Church of Scotland movement is St George’s Tron in Glasgow, the church which nurtured me in my faith throughout my childhood and adolescence and where I was fed by the wonderful biblical expository preaching of Eric Alexander now being made available online. Just after Easter, St George’s Tron hosted a meeting with Archbishop Peter Jensen (the Archbishop of Sydney and Secretary of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans) who, after his meeting with the GAFCON Primates, travelled north to speak on Contending for the Faith. Although the Sydney connection with the Church of Scotland is, I believe, new, the personal links with the minister, Dr William Philip, go back some time as Dr Philip when he was for five years Director of Ministry with the Proclamation Trust worked with Peter Jensen. St George’s Tron’s honorary associate minister, Edward Lobb, who now heads Cornhill Training Course in Scotland, was previously an Anglican vicar and Bob Fyall, the other honorary associate minister, taught me and many other Anglicans when he was on the staff at Cranmer Hall where he co-authored the helpful Grove Biblical Studies booklet on The Bible and Homosexuality, in part a response to the work of Michael Vasey, Strangers and Friends.
The connection between the new movement and GAFCON however is not just relational. It runs even deeper and at a doctrinal level. A comparison of the Confessing Churches Covenant with the Jerusalem Declaration of GAFCON is particularly illuminating. Although the former has only 10 points and the latter has 14, it is clearly based very closely on the GAFCON statement as the comparison below shows.[5]
Confessing Churches Covenant Jerusalem Declaration
Implications
It is clear that the Church of Scotland is on the verge of a major crisis. By the end of this month it may be facing the sort of impaired and broken communion between churches and presbyteries that has torn the fabric of the Anglican Communion. Like the Church of England, it is an established, national church with a range of theological perspectives including a strong and vibrant Evangelicalism on the ground whose beliefs are at the centre of the church’s official doctrine even if not always at the centre of its current institutions and practice. That evangelical voice within the established church has now been roused as it was in the Church of England over the Reading crisis when the Bishop of Oxford appointed Jeffrey John, an openly same-sex partnered – though abstinent - clergyman as bishop. It perceives there to be an attempt to shift the church away from biblical teaching and discipline by creating “facts on the ground”. These enable the church to fit in more with the trends in wider society through the appointment of an openly same-sex partnered individual. The difference now, compared to 2003, is that there are well-established networks and patterns of response from within the Anglican crisis to which those who are concerned within the Church of Scotland can turn and clearly are turning for wisdom and support.
July sees the launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) in the British Isles. This will attract a good number of traditional Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals in the Church of England and likely embrace almost all the beleaguered, largely evangelical, orthodox in the Episcopal Churches of Scotland, Wales and Ireland as the leadership of those churches have expressed at best a cool response to the proposed Anglican covenant and shown signs of wishing to follow the affirming response of the American and Canadian Anglican churches in relation to same-sex relationships. (Peter Jensen also spoke last month at the Evangelical Fellowship of Irish Clergy within the Anglican Church of Ireland).
The significance of this new parallel development within the established Church of Scotland must not be ignored or downplayed. There is the prospect of the established Church of Scotland and the three non-established episcopal churches in these islands increasingly taking a more principled and openly affirming stance to same-sex partnerships. In response, those opposing this will be drawn into these new fellowships taking a confessional stance against their church’s legal authorities and structures. If this were to happen then the fragile situation in the Church of England would find itself coming under increasing pressure not only from the fragmentation of the wider Communion and from ecumenical partners such as the Church of Sweden but from pressures closer to home.
The creation of these two new fellowships – the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and the Fellowship of Confessing Churches in the Church of Scotland - opens up the prospect of a much wider ecumenical confessional network developing in the UK with an orthodox, evangelical and missional heart. It creates the potential for a significant realignment within some of the major United Kingdom denominations that all evangelicals in the Church of England – open and charismatic as well as conservative – will need to take seriously, especially if the Anglican covenant fails to provide the way forward for global Anglicanism and Anglicans here have to start choosing between two different Anglican structures in North America.
With the recent difficulties surrounding the Anglican covenant and the imminent decisions of the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly, now really is a time when we need to keep watching, praying and working for the church’s unity, faithfulness and mission not only in the Church of England and within global Anglicanism but also in the Church of Scotland.
[1] For Rennie’s own account see the recent interview with him at www.onekirk.org/Resources/OneKirk_Journal_Spring09_Issue3.pdf
[2] The case against Righter has been clearly stated by Stephen Noll at http://www.stephenswitness.com/2007/07/righter-trial-and-christian-doctrine.html and http://www.stephenswitness.com/2007/07/righter-trial-and-church-discipline.html
[3] For information on the votes from the main evangelical grouping (breakdown by presbytery on p6) see www.forwardtogether.org.uk/newsletter/ftnewsletter200612.pdf
[4] For Fulcrum coverage see http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=323
[5] In effect the only GAFCON statements having no equivalent are the distinctively Anglican statements “6. We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture. 7. We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders”. In CCC4, the Westminster Confession has replaced the 39 Articles of GAFCON4 and the statement been reworded.
Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 20 May 2009 - 08:07am Hello Roger, I do have more than just those pages....but I find 1Cor5-6 (and the whole book) amazingly relevant to our AC issues and Gal 2 one of the best biblical models for how we should handle differences when some suggest we should "live with contradiction".... I find no biblical justification for that accomodating view when we are talking about behaviour which is never spoken of in a positive way in scripture (the ABC has agreed with that statement and he is not a member of Reform!) "Revisionist" is not a term of abuse, Roger, but a factual statement. Luther put forward some revisionist views which were right because he showed how his church had deviated from scripture in certain crucial ways.... I am glad he challenged his church's heresy, based on scripture. Some, including you, want to revise the interpretation of scripture on certain issues which is held in the CofE, AC and by most Christians in the world today and in the last 2000 years, therefore you are, by definition, putting forward a revisionist view.....but few in the AC have been persuaded after many, many years of hearing those arguments. Even brilliant, persuasive scholars and speakers like Roy Clements (who, despite his change of views on one issue, I still think of as a great man in many ways because I saw his good work in Cambridge) have not been able to persuade many evangelicals that the scriptures actuallly call good and holy what Lambeth 1.10 describes as "incompatible with scripture". I am not saying that you are ignoring scripture but I am saying few have been persuaded by revisionist arguments..... and I think those arguments are weak. If few are persuaded in the AC, after years of listening and fait accomplis from TECUSA in 2003, then the question becomes one about unity in the AC. Should we sacrifice unity in the AC because a small minority wants the AC to "live with contradiction" while they condone behaviour which most of the AC thinks "incompatible with scripture"? The new testament would not recommend that, would it? It is not a recipe for unity.However, because groups like TECUSA are so small without the AC stage, they demand to stay in the AC and the right to tear the fabric of the Communion when it suits them..... this is not acceptable and not in line with teaching to the new testament church....if we value unity, and we should. Yes, some racists in SA tried to use the bible to support what they wanted to do anyway. They did not persuade many that their racist policies were biblical, even if they claimed that, and many Christians opposed them because their agenda was incompatible with scripture (many others opposed them too, for other reasons, of course). Should we have "lived with contradiction" and said that we really have no right to judge their "interpretation" of scripture as they sought to justify racism? Should we have remained in fellowship with those who tried to make a biblical case to justify apartheid even though few were persuaded? I would say that we should have opposed them, based on scripture......and I would have referred to 1 Cor 5-6 and Gal 2, as well as other passages. Roger, the sad thing is that some (I am not saying you) have pursued their revisionist agenda in the AC regardless of the consequences for AC unity.... 2003 is a classic example, when TECUSA went ahead despite pleas from the ABC and all the Primates (bizarrely, including their own, although he felt able to fly home and go against that same plea! Interesting "integrity") . Many Anglicans in the world, even in the CofE, are not willing to be forced into accepting in the AC behaviour which most still think "incompatible with scripture"..... is that unreasonable? Posted by: Roger Hurding Tuesday 19 May 2009 - 08:09pm Nersen, I suspect your Bible is easily identifiable as its pages must be dog-eared at 1 Corinthians 5-6 and Galatians 2. Those passages really do seem to be your happy hunting ground for ‘false teaching’, ‘revisionism’ and those who spurn the ‘authority of scripture’. You write, ‘When some tried to justify apartheid, should we have not said that they were wrong, according to scripture, but instead "lived with contradiction" and acquiesced with their false teaching?’ In fact, and this matter has come up several times on other threads, the point here is that proponents of apartheid actually believed they were being true to scripture. Similarly, in earlier centuries, Christians were convinced that it was quite scriptural to support slavery, since there seemed to be no clear contradiction to this in the bible. Jeremy is right. There are a number of us who are not convinced by the traditional interpretations of the so-called ‘anti-gay’ texts – and yet, like you, we seek to be faithful to scripture. I’m interested too in your frequent use of the term ‘revisionist’ for such alternative readings of scripture. Can we not say that church history has unfolded all the better since, by a continuing reading and rereading of the bible, many former majority views have been revisited and revised. Examples include teaching on usury, contraception, slavery, women’s ministry and divorce. And isn’t God revisionist? Wasn’t Jesus revisionist when, in his sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7) he repeatedly said, ‘You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times … But I say to you that …’? Didn’t Jesus revisit and, from the point of view of his two fellow-travellers, reinterpret ‘the things about himself in all the scriptures’ (Luke 24:27)? Doesn’t the Holy Spirit offer revision in that ‘he will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come’ (John 16:13)? Do realize Nersen, that you, and I of course, may be wrong as we continue to seek to understand the scriptures with the Spirit’s help. We need to take note of Jeremy's words: ‘And where Christians disagree, then conflicting positions arise, and we have to live with contradiction, and it simply is not good enough to try and eliminate one another by pretending that one side is faithful and the others are not'. Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 19 May 2009 - 11:01am Jeremy....I am not pushing my personal "interpretation"....but what is still the official postition of the CofE and the AC, what the ABC has called "the mind of the Communion", which happens to be consistent with most Christians in the world today and in the last 2000 years. The majority today and traditional interpretations may not be correct.... but that does not give a minority the right to do whatever it likes but still demand to be in the Communion.....it is necessary to change the "mind of the Communion" first, if there is any concern for unity rather than asserting rights regardless. You say, " we have to live with contradiction".... why? Any biblical basis for this? I do not recall the Corinthians or Galatians being taught to "live with contradiction" when unity and sound doctrine was threatened in those churches by the teaching and lives of some. Perhaps you will want to claim that we are talking about disputable matters so there should be freedom.....but few agree that the scriptures are unclear and that issues are all that disputable.....even cuddly open evangelicals (eg the Fulcrum leadership) agree with their less patient, conservative brothers and sisters that certain things are incompatible with scripture - and even Lambeth 2008 did not overturn Lambeth 1.10 (some campaigners would love to get rid of it!) Matters are not disputable merely because some declare them to be so where they disagree with what scripture says. As for "living with contradiction", I guess your logic would mean that St Paul ought not to have taken on and corrected St Peter (Gal 2) when he was in error....he should have learned from and celebrated the difference?? When some tried to justify apartheid, should we have not said that they were wrong, according to scripture, but instead "lived with contradiction" and acquiesced with their false teaching? Of course, people can argue for a change....we have had decades of that. But, it is not biblical and it is a recipe for division in the church to defend the right of a minority which has not been able to change "the mind of the Communion" through theological arguments, to pursue its own agenda anyway, forcing everyone in the communion to "live with contradiction" whether they like it or not. Despite his personal views, the ABC has not defended the right to present the communion with fait accomplis regardless of the mind of the Communion. If, taking your example, the bible said "do not eat meat", which it does not obviously, it would be the same if some were eating meat regardless of the mind of the Communion, if that was set against it on the bais of scripture..... and then demanding we all "live with contradiction". There is little integrity in that position.....it is merely forcing the acceptance of change having failed to persuade many, regardless of the obvious consequences for unity. Posted by: Deleted user 1543 Tuesday 19 May 2009 - 09:49am No, Nersen, I wouldn't say that. The authority of Scripture as the Preface and the Declaration put it is that our "faith (is) revealed in the Scriptures", and to that faith we pledge our allegiance. But it is not the case that people who hold a different position to you on the question of homosexuality are simply igoring Scripture - they just do not agree with your interpretation of what Scripture is saying over the issue. And where Christians disagree, then conflicting positions arise, and we have to live with contradiction, and it simply is not good enough to try and eliminate one another by pretending that one side is faithful and the others are not. There are all kinds of things over which Christians who want to faithful to the faith revealed in the Scriptures disagree - take serving in the military, or eating meat, for example. Both of these are moral questions over which we seem prefectly able to tolerate contradictory positions in our church and in individual fellowships. Being in the majority or the minority is frankly irrelevant. I am unpersuaded that sexual ethics are somehow different. Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 19 May 2009 - 07:15am Hi Jeremy, I understand what you say but I don't think the Preface and the Declaration of Assent give strong justification for a minority view not only being argued but being practised regardless of "the mind of the Communion" and repeated pleas from the Primates, and a Lambeth resolution, which ask that group not to continue with its divisive stance given the wider Communion has not been persuaded of its theological case for change. Would you argue that the Preface and the Declaration of Assent mean that we should tolerate completely contradictory positions on the authority of scripture over moral issues? Posted by: CliffordSwartz Monday 18 May 2009 - 06:23pm Thank you for the article and forum for discussion. In reply, two things caught my eye: 1. From the Jerusalem Declaration cited in the article: We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. It appears that the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is acting out what has been publicly stated. That's a good thing, isn't it? That what was declared is being done, in terms of fostering ecumenical relationships? How many declarations have we seen that have little yield in terms of real action and genuine fellowship with those in other denominations? The article gives the impression of a secret conspiracy to me -- something to watch out for rather than something for which we give thanks and pray in the future to prosper. 2. From the Article: "There is the prospect of the established Church of Scotland and the three non-established episcopal churches in these islands increasingly taking a more principled and openly affirming stance to same-sex partnerships. In response, those opposing this will be drawn into these new fellowships taking a confessional stance against their church’s legal authorities and structures. If this were to happen then the fragile situation in the Church of England would find itself coming under increasing pressure not only from the fragmentation of the wider Communion and from ecumenical partners such as the Church of Sweden but from pressures closer to home." A question about the premise, of these "new fellowships taking a confessional stance against their church’s legal authorities and structures". It would seem that the confessional stance seeks to bring the denomination back from the brink of breaking its own laws. A question about the conclusion, that "if this were to happen then the fragile situation in the Church of England would find itself coming under increasing pressure not only from the fragmentation of the wider Communion and from ecumenical partners such as the Church of Sweden but from pressures closer to home." This does not follow if the actions of the minority in the wider Communion are the source of fragmentation, in which case the confessing movements promote unity with the majority of the Communion and the Church of England. And it might be that the history of the Church of Sweden encourages the opposite conclusion -- that the revival movement which led to some fractures also increased the local churchgoing of the established church? (From the Church of Sweden website: Somewhat less than 4 percent of the Church of Sweden membership attends public worship during an average week; about 2 per cent are regular attenders. Attendance rates vary considerably; they are higher in parts of Sweden strongly influenced by the 19th-century revival movements.) I am a member of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, and serve an Anglican church in New York City alongside parishes within the usual Episcopal Church structures. We have unity in the Gospel with those in various jurisdictions (Anglican and otherwise), including those remaining in the Episcopal Church. There's enough missionary work to go around, surely? I suppose I am left with the notion when reading articles on Fulcrum that the primary unity is not in the Gospel but in the denomination. I don't hear the FCA saying "come out from them" but rather a message of urgency to preach the Gospel to the nation both within and without the established structures. Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in the forum. -- Clifford Swartz Posted by: Deleted user 1543 Monday 18 May 2009 - 11:59am Nersen - it is worth perhaps reminding ourselves what the Preface and the Declaration of Assent actually say: Preface The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make, will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making Him known to those in your care? Declaration of Assent I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon. I have to say, that in the way in which it is formulated, I don't think clergy are being asked to, as it were, subscribe to every jot and tittle of the 39 Articles. In fact, historically speaking, that is precisely what the Preface and the Declaration of Assent are designed to move us away from. It was scruples over subscription to the Articles that nearly prevented William Temple being ordained. So in that sense they are historic and, because the Church of England is not a confessing church, not part of the current "confession" - but are part of a vaguer "inheritance of faith". People who like being absolutely clear about things won't like that - so I am not surprised that they want to make things much more confession-based - but I am perfectly happy with the Preface and the Declaration of Assent as it stands. Oh yes, I have also noticed that the people who are very keen on being a confessing church are usually those who are the worst at only using the "forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon". Strange eh? Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 18 May 2009 - 08:19am Adrian says, "don't worry about heterodox folk like me because I won't be anywhere near." That is your right......but are we supposed to relegate the 39 articles to historical relic status, break with most Anglicans in the world and condone behaviour incompatible with scripture to suit your views, Adrian? We may lose many thousands of people in the CofE on a Sunday if we make those changes to include you...... Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Sunday 17 May 2009 - 01:33pm Well, he doesn't quite sign on the new dotted line, but it is clear enough where Andrew Goddard's sympathies lie - so it doesn't say that much about the unity conference just held in London does it, if you regard unity as realigning and institutionally shifting around existing denominations - the Church of England split, the Church of Scotland split, both thanks to the work of GAFCON sourced statements. So far I've listened to just one of those Fulcrum talks on Saturday, and I have to say it appears the most institutional of all the strands of Anglicanism. It just doesn't relate to the world out there - end up as a purist sect, if you like, and don't worry about heterodox folk like me because I won't be anywhere near. Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 17 May 2009 - 10:51am Excellent analysis from Andrew Goddard, as always. The final paragraph is absolutely right.....it is a key time for the CofE and it matters a great deal that it stays faithful to its scriptural roots. The call for institutional unity despite significant doctrinal differences is becoming weaker and weaker. Given what happened in Jamaica, the delaying of the covenant being sent to the provinces was only in the interests of the revisionist minority in the AC, if in 8 months time we are faced with more delay and asked for yet more time (which, sadly, I bet we will), the AC and CofE will face very severe tensions.....because institutional unity is less important than unity in the gospel (and genuine gospel unity precludes contradictory attitudes re the authority of scripture on certain issues) As Dr Goddard says, we have the "prospect of a much wider ecumenical confessional network developing in the UK with an orthodox, evangelical and missional heart...." Sounds great to me.....Christ prayed for unity amongst his followers, after all! He warned us about wolves dressing as sheep but he prayed for the unity of believers and he did not mention denominations 
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 15 May 2009 - 03:41pm
We have recently published on Fulcrum, 'Church of Scotland Tensions and GAFCON' by Andrew Goddard. |
LATEST
|
As someone brought up in the Church of Scotland (the Presbyterian established church, not to be confused with the Scottish Episcopal Church), it is distressing to see that denomination heading rapidly into the sort of conflict and division that has marked the Anglican Communion over homosexuality. It has also been intriguing to see in the last few weeks how some of those Anglicans most vigorously defending traditional teaching are now helping define the battleground north of the border in this non-Anglican denomination.