Register or
forgotten your details?
 
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/441
Fulcrum Subjects: Anglicanism, Windsor Process / Anglicanism, Evangelical
Other articles by Graham Kings are available from this site
Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum
See the 164 comments on this article

The Queen, the Church and the Fellowship

by Graham Kings, Bishop of Sherborne

co-published with Comment is Free Belief, The Guardian

 

‘We will keep formal administrative links with the formal Church of England, but our real identity is with Global Anglicanism as defined by the Jerusalem statement and declaration.’

 

This was stated by Christopher Sugden, executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream, at the National Evangelical Anglican Consultation at All Souls’ Langham Place, London, on 15 November 2008. The consultation declined to vote on a resolution backing the Jerusalem declaration placed on their seats that morning, without the possibility of amendment.

On Sunday 5 July 2009, Christopher Sugden, now also secretary of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans UK (FCAUK), was asked on the BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme whether it was true that the Queen had written to him and the FCA to say that “she understood their concerns”. He replied that this was “correct”. Some sentences from her private letters, without their contexts, were then quoted the next day at the launch of FCAUK at Westminster Central Hall, London.

Loyalty has been pledged to the Queen – though the contradiction with the keeping of mere ‘formal administrative links with the formal Church of England’ is particularly startling - and an attempt was made to present the correspondence of her courtier to FCAUK as her support. This has backfired.

Neither consultations nor the Crown appreciate manipulation. Buckingham Palace said it would not comment on private correspondence. Royal sources said the Queen was not endorsing the FCA and pointed out that she corresponds with a great number of organisations. The irony of that final word is that leaders of FCAUK have insisted that it is not an ‘organisation’ but merely a ‘fellowship’. Another irony is that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is clearly a ‘woman leader’ and ‘women’s leadership’ in the Church at the highest level was hotly contended at the launch of FCAUK.

Traditionalist Anglican Catholic groups such as Forward in Faith (FiF), who are against the ordination of women, also have not enjoyed being co-opted by the organisers. Although a strange alliance had been trumpeted between conservative Evangelicals and conservative Anglo Catholics, the launch manifested the marginalization of the latter – especially in the afternoon session - and supporters of the latter have not been slow in expressing their sense of betrayal.

While agreeing with some of the clauses of the Jerusalem Declaration, the rallying document of FCAUK, and that bishops should not be consecrated who are in sexual relationships outside of marriage, I believe the way forward for the Church of England, and the Anglican Communion, is through the glacial gravity of the Anglican Covenant rather than through the setting up of opportunist, autonomous fellowships. In North America, there is a worrying trajectory. What began as a fellowship (Anglican Communion Network), became a church within a Church (Common Cause) and finally split off completely to form a new church with its own archbishop (Anglican Church of North America).

From various reports of those present at the launch of FCAUK, ‘institutional loyalty’ was a phrase repeatedly castigated. To downgrade the Church of England to a mere institution, and to imply that loyalty to it is unworthy, sits remarkably strangely with their declarations to the Queen but fits mere ‘formal administrative links’. It should be noted that loyalty to the archbishop and bishops of the Church of England were conspicuously absent (in spite of ordination oaths). They were being bypassed. Preferred loyalty was to specific bishops in the Anglican Communion who back the Jerusalem Declaration.

The Church of England is not perfect: this is well known, and prayer is offered daily in love for her renewal. However, if you find the perfect church, whatever you do, don’t join it: it will cease to be perfect.

 

Dr Graham Kings is Bishop of Sherborne and theological secretary of Fulcrum

 

 

Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum

Forum Posts About This Article:

 Posted by: linkbox9  Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 07:43pm
"What began as a fellowship (Anglican Communion Network), became a church within a Church (Common Cause) and finally split off completely to form a new church with its own archbishop (Anglican Church of North America)." This makes it sounds like that is the fault of ACN/CC/ACNA. In fact, surely it was the drift of ECUSA/TEC which forced this process? So there is nothing to fear from FCA if the CofE maintains it's position. The challenge is to uphold orthodoxy within the CofE. If this is done, FCA will not be needed. But if the CofE goes down the path of TEC (over, say, the next 50 years), then with hindsight we will be glad to have groupings like FCA available to us. James  
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 04:15pm
Not sure how what +Graham has written for the Guardian builds anyone or anything up.....sadly
 Posted by: Jody  Tuesday 14 July 2009 - 04:11pm
Fulcrum has co-published with The Guardian, Comment is Free belief, the following article by Graham Kings: The Queen, the Church and the Fellowship
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Thursday 9 July 2009 - 07:50am
Hi Celinda and Mark.   St Paul was, of course, very familiar with Roman and Greek culture.......since they were not heirs of God's OT law, those cultures were much more "accepting" of behaviour which St Paul said was sinful and, folowing the teaching of the OT and NT, our AC bishops still say is "incompatible with scripture".   Mark - I could say to you, "I agree it is wrong to be greedy but what is "greed"?"  The implication is that the apostle did not really know what he was talking about if we apply his words to our culture. I think St Paul should not be underestimated in his understand of human life, nor the Holy Spirit which inspired him be written off as culturally conditioned and limited by a lack of scientific and modern knowledge.  It is not persuasive to try and define away the problem...which is not about temptation but action. Even Rowan Williams (with his undoubted massive intellect) has not persuaded the CofE/AC that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong in its interpretation of scripture....and he has made a very significant effort to do so in the last couple of decades. I don't think he has failed to change Lambeth 1.10 because others are not clever enough to see his arguments. He is honest that the "mind of the Communion" is what it is ....and it remains in line with most Christians in the world today -  he is also mindful of splitting from them to please presure groups in the AC, I am sure. The ABC encourages proper respect for Lambeth 1.10 (even though he has not necessarily given it such in the past when ordaining people).   It would be  much easier to live in the UK these days too if one could agree with the ABC's views on Lambeth 1.10.......this is why I respect massively the unpopular stand of +Durham, Dr Goddard, +Graham, Tim Goodbody and many others  (not good for promotion prospects in the CofE or in academia -  but they are faithfully standing for what they see scripture saying, having been listening for decades to all the important questions being raised here, and elsewhere, which would change the stance of the CofE and AC)  
 Posted by: Celinda  Wednesday 8 July 2009 - 01:18pm
Nersen is asking a good question, I think--are the questions about homosexuality 2000 years old?  Questions about the nature of Christ and about issues related to gnosticism are certainly questions which have been asked over and over again for many centuries.  But as someone else on this thread remarked, the particular questions we've been debating at least since 1973 and the APA decision (and a similar decision by psychiatrists in the UK), and which were addressed by Lambeth 1.10,  may be new.  Perhaps scholars on this list know.   
 Posted by: Deleted user 974  Wednesday 8 July 2009 - 10:23am
'That's not how it's looking now.  By all means raise questions about GAFCON, FCA and the like, but actually briefing against them seems to me quite wrong and not what Fulcrum should be about.  It seems to me that there needs to be an urgent realisation on all sides that we are friends, not foes and that we actually have the same concerns about what is happening albeit with a different way of response.  But that's ok isn't it?  Or is it?' Yes, and I hope gay poeple and our supporters are included in this too, friend. By all means raise questions about Changing Attitude and Accepting Evangelicals (etc), but actually briefing against them seems to me wrong and not  what Fulcrum or the Churches should be about, either.      
 Posted by: Mark Bennet  Wednesday 8 July 2009 - 08:58am
Nersen This part of the discussion is drifting off topic a bit, but I just want to draw your attenbtion to a question which I believe has not really received an adequate answer - the answers are - in terms of my last post "thin" rather than "thick" descriptions. The question is 'What is homosexuality?" - the word and its cognates are being used so differently by different people that people who think they are talking to each other about the same thing are in fact talking about radically different things. Lambeth 1.10 respects tradittion in various ways, including the integrity of dioceses and diocesan boundaries (I think it was wisdom from the outcome of the Arian controversy - a major dispute, I think you will agree, on a matter of real importance - that there were more problems caused by border crossings than were solved). The reports since have suggested that it is this part of Lambeth 1.10 which has held less well. Mark
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Wednesday 8 July 2009 - 07:44am
Thanks for your reply, Mark. I do recognise the quotation...we are all sinners but how do we respond to God's grace (Romans 6:1-4)?    I guess your challenge is about whether are we talking of disputable matters or sin? Have we interpreted the bible correctly?  A few in the AC think there are "new" questions to be asked and they will not accept the "mind of the Communion" but demand that the AC  "listen" until it comes  up with the "right" answer....... and breaks away from most Christians in the world today as well as 2000 years of tradition.         But are the questions really new?      Even if people reject tradition where it supports Lambeth 1.10, are the "new" questions not decades (if not 2000 years) old?   Have serious academic people like +Durham and Dr Goddard (and many others in the AC our outside) not considered seriously the debates and questions raised in the last few decades?    
 Posted by: Anonymous  Tuesday 7 July 2009 - 11:55pm
Readers might be interested in the thoughts of someone who was actually there at the FCA launch.  Read my thoughts about it at www.nickjonesbradford.wordpress.com. You will realise that I actually think it's a good thing.  That doesn't mean that I haven't got questions, but I think they can be asked from inside and not just outside.  In fact, I really enjoyed Andrew Goddard's article here and take on board many of his points.  It was also good to see he was there yesterday. Does that make me 'persona non grata' in Fulcrum then?  I am beginning to wonder if it does.  I thought Fulcrum was about what it says on the tin - 'renewing the evangelical centre.'  I didn't think there was a party line on how we should approach the current state of affairs in the Anglican Communion.  On that basis, I was willing to host the 'Fulcrum in the North' conference last summer and I am pleased to have done it.  That's not how it's looking now.  By all means raise questions about GAFCON, FCA and the like, but actually briefing against them seems to me quite wrong and not what Fulcrum should be about.  It seems to me that there needs to be an urgent realisation on all sides that we are friends, not foes and that we actually have the same concerns about what is happening albeit with a different way of response.  But that's ok isn't it?  Or is it?
 Posted by: Mark Bennet  Tuesday 7 July 2009 - 10:09pm
Nersen I don't want to condone sin - but I do think there have been fair questions raised about our understanding of homosexuality and its relation to what is said in the Bible which have not been asked in previous generations - at least not in the way they have in this generation. So I think our understanding of scripture is put to the test. And it seems to me that what translators and interpreters of the text have thought was clear in previous generations, and have therefore rendered clearly in English texts and commentaries does not meet the questions of the moment. The English texts and commentaries are, of course, not scripture, but tradition - and the claim to 2000 years of interpretation is also a claim for tradition. I think there is an assumption that we are bringing old questions to scripture, when the questions are new - in form, content and context. Neither side of the scriptural debate scores particularly well, though I think some of the questions are now well framed, I don't think that they are being answered with the care and subtlety which they deserve. And there is very limited space where listening is going on, in spite of this being a key plank of the Windsor process. I am what seems to be called a pastoral theologian who takes the Bible seriously. There are more people like me out there than you might expect - though we don't always agree. Since the Bible is a multifaceted text, dealing with human situations in complex ways (we had part of the story of Samson at evening prayer today - try fitting that into a "traditional Biblical" understanding of marriage) I regard it as important to have a careful and detailed ("thick" rather than "thin") description of human circumstances alongside the Biblical text - because there is generally more than one text applicable to each situation, and sometimes they pull in different directions. I am taken with the concept of "phronesis" or practical wisdom - hermeneutics as a skill - which is echoed by Prof David Ford in some of his recent work on wisdom. In examining proverbs "many hands make light work" while "too many cooks spoil the broth" - the essence of wisdom is not knowing the texts, but knowing how to apply them in practice. Solomon was not wise because he knew all the proverbs, but because he knew which one met the circumstances of the moment. You might recognise the following text: "If we say we have no sin, the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." If I were to assert that I was a perfect penitent, I would be claiming I have no sin. It would be dangerous to claim such a thing even of the recently consecrated Bishop of Sherborne. If the claim that leaders we disagree with are impenitent sinners is an implicit claim that our own preferred leaders are more penitent than they, aren't we rather close to denying scriptural truth?  
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Tuesday 7 July 2009 - 08:27am
Thanks Mark...absolutely, the whole bible has authority......I mention Corinthians because it is relevant (lawsuits, immorality addressed directly...nothing is new in the situation we face) but I am very happy to apply Romans (all of it, including Ch 1-3)(and Leviticus...we must not neglect the OT) and other books to current AC issues.   The question is, how do we deal with some in leadership and teaching positions who do not apply the whole bible and want the AC to tolerate them condoning behaviour "incompatible with scripture" according to (not me but) our AC bishops who happen to be in line with most Christians in the world today and 2000 years of tradition? 
 Posted by: Deleted user 974  Monday 6 July 2009 - 04:36pm
At no time did Her Majesty exchange knitting patterns ...
 Posted by: Simon Cawdell  Monday 6 July 2009 - 03:58pm
Further to the suggestion that FCA have received a 'supportive' letter from the Queen the Telegraph today also contains the passage: "Royal sources said the Queen was not endorsing the FCA and pointed out that she corresponds with a great number of organisations." Anyone who suggests otherwise would seem to be overreaching themselves.
 Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt  Monday 6 July 2009 - 07:41am
See the link below for Ruth Gledhill's article in the Times about FCA which happens today. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6644431.ece In her summary of what FCA stands for, Ruth uses the language of the first two moratoria on the ordination of gay clergy and blessings for gay marriage or civil partnership. However any reference to the third moratoria on transprovincial consecrations has been replaced (in her summary) by a statement on the fellowship's opposition to the consecration of women bishops. It seems clear that it is opposition to women bishops that is the primary factor prompting many (particularly the Forward in Faith contingent) to support FCA and it will be interesting to see if this 'elephant in the room' is openly addressed today.
 Posted by: Deleted user 974  Saturday 4 July 2009 - 10:46pm
You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. (Ann Lamott)
 Posted by: John Watson  Saturday 4 July 2009 - 08:37pm
I came across this interesting piece today,  which reveals how much unity there just might be under the FCA press releases at present: Geoffrey Kirk, the Secretary of Forward in Faith once wrote in the aftermath of the Jeffrey John  issue: The English revisionists are, for the moment, very polite about all this. They have no need to be aggressive when they are winning so easily and so comprehensively. But American revisionists have begun, with great effect, to cast the same in the Evangelicals’ teeth. ‘You have already swallowed two things which scripture forbids and the tradition has comprehensively condemned,’ they point out. ‘Why are you gritting your teeth now at what is merely a consequential amendment?’ It is an accusation, of course, which implicitly suggests that, by making opposition to homosexual practice the cynosure of orthodoxy, Evangelical traditionalists are motivated more by homophobia than faithfulness to the Bible And, alas, it is an accusation which the incoherent behaviour of Anglican Mainstream and similar groups, makes it very difficult to refute. The ‘two things’ refer to remarriage of divorcees and women in ministry, His view of AM? Anglican Mainstream is a well-intentioned group of serious-minded Evangelicals. But it is a group which seems to have no tactical ability, strategical sense or basic ecclesiology. It claims fidelity to scripture as its salient principle – and yet many of its members have already departed from scripture in the matter of the remarriage of divorced persons and the ordination of women. In the first instance they are ignoring one of the most categorical dominical injunctions, and in the second they are setting aside Pauline texts arguably more comprehensive and definitive than those against homosexuality. (emphasis mine)   He also enjoins: Mainstream has a lot of questions of answer…. You can read the article for yourself… http://trushare.com/0111AUG04/AU04STRA.htm
 Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt  Saturday 4 July 2009 - 06:46pm
The really key thing to bear in mind in interpreting FCA are the words of the prime mover behind it, Chris Sugden: ‘We will keep formal administrative links with the formal Church of England, but our real identity is with Global Anglicanism as defined by the Jerusalem statement and declaration.  GAFCON is our connection to the Global Anglican Communion’.  For tactical reasons, the organisers of FCA now seem anxious about declaring their separatist agenda quite so openly (at least for the moment). But their use of Charles Raven as their spokensperson really is a bit of a giveaway. All of which suggests that a major problem with FCA is the happiness of the main movers behind it to be duplicitous and act in secrecy. Bishop Nick Baines, the evangelical Bishop of Croydon revealed this week that after the irregular ordinations in the Diocese of Southwark a few years ago now he wrote to some of those involved asking them to show where they find the biblical sanction for lying, misrepresentation and subterfuge and never received a reply. These are strong words but Bishop Nick will have had the experience of being strung one line while a completely different one was being carefully organised. Richard Turnbull's attempt at NEAC2008 to keep a major resolution secret until the morning of the conference and then not allow amendments was another example of this. Chris Sugden and Paul Perkin were closely involved in the organisation and secrecy of both of these events and would do well to read again before Monday Simon Butler's utterly pertinent article found on this website "We have renounced secret ways...or have we?" http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/20061110butler.cfm?doc=165  
 Posted by: Roger Hurding  Saturday 4 July 2009 - 04:38pm
Thank you James and Jeremy.  My post of 8.16am on Friday, 3rd July, is in the same vein, although, for what its worth, it may have got somewhat lost amidst the plethora of posts on this thread.  Let’s keep listening, talking, praying and re-reading the scriptures.
 Posted by: James  Saturday 4 July 2009 - 10:44am
You are right. Maybe FCA will turn out better than I fear. At the moment I am only judging by the speakers I have seen listed as key earlier on this thread - by the voices omitted as much as those included; and by the way in which it is being earnestly promoted by Reform and FiF (amongst others) in some kind of common cause. There are many things I respect about Reform and many people in it too, and much that I would share with them - but not their view about the best way to relate to the Church of England. I am not trying to kill off FCA, I don't remotely have the power to do that, but nor do I find at present that I want to promote it as some would have me do. This forum is one of the places where I can express the doubts I feel, knowing that there are some others here who share those doubts, and some who are keen to allay them. At the moment my doubts remain.
 Posted by: Dave  Saturday 4 July 2009 - 09:05am
James, Where do you get your information from? The FCA has not yet been launched in the UK. Have you listened to or read the talks from GAFCON and NEAC5 etc. ? Some people seem determined not to give this organisation a chance. I am shocked by the politics which mean that so many are trying to kill it off before it is born.
 Posted by: Deleted user 1543  Saturday 4 July 2009 - 07:18am
In fact, David H, your comments about the "unnatural nature of such relationships" and the formation of FCA are not miles apart. For, where it not for the fact of the church painfully trying to start to come to terms with homosexuality FCA would not exist at all. I know perfectly well that there is significant doctrinal unorthodoxy in some parts of TEC - but the catalyst for all this division which has now arrived here is this one single issue. If you stripped out of an month's output by Anglican Mainstream all the homosexuality/defence of marriage (which is only the flip side of the former) articles, there would be very little left. The truth is that for the small minority who are homosexual, their desires and their relatioships are not  against their natures - but entirely in accordance with them. They are not chosen, they are not a perversion of what they really want, they are not supressing latent heterosexuality. And, Romans 1 notwithstanding (because I think it is actually trying to make other points), they are not worshippers of idols who have turned against God - there are many faithful Christians who are gay and lesbian. Of course it is "not the way to go" - not for heterosexual people. They have no interest in same-sex relationships. And no homosexual I know has any interest in trying to "convert" them. But we now live in a country which, thankfully, has stopped criminalising homosexuals, and is now largely opposed to discriminating against them in any area of public life. To see the church dividing over this is tragic and wrong. FCA is not an example of faithfulness, but of wilfulness and wrong-headedness.
 Posted by: James  Saturday 4 July 2009 - 06:59am
David H said"James, As far as I am concerned Scripture says nothing to support homosexual relationships and condemns them in several places. I accept that some exegetes have managed to limit these condemnations taken in isolation. However in the context of Christian teaching on marriage and Paul's teaching on the unnatural nature of such relationships this is not the way to go. I am trying to be brief as this is far from the subject of this thread! However I must object to the assumption that because the church has changed it's views on some issues, it will change it's view on this one. David" To get back to the subject of this thread, then, one reason why I will not be joining FCA is because I consider many of them to be unscriptural on the ordination of women, unduly focussed on the sexual as far as matters of morality are concerned, and apparently unable or unwilling to articulate a rationale for their interpretation of the Scriptures which justifies the focus on that issue while turning a blind eye to other practices or behaviours which the Scriptures condemn. This is why I raised these examples. We think it trivial that money should be lent at interest, or that women should pray in public with their heads uncovered - yet the Scriptures are perfectly clear about these things. What makes them different from homosexual relationships? I am not here arguing about the rightness or wrongness of homosexual relationships, I am arguing about an approach to reading the Scriptures which has an integrity that will stand up to scrutiny. I do not at all assume that because the Church has changed its mind on some things it will change its view on others. But we need to make a clear and coherent case to separate those things the church has changed its mind about from those it will not (and indeed from any which may be matters of indifference).
 Posted by: Mark Bennet  Friday 3 July 2009 - 09:36pm
Nersen 1 Corinthians is not the only text in the Bible which addresses the issues (Romans 13 does, for example, and there are many others). I for one am not prepared to enter into a discussion of what the Bible says without the whole Bible on the table. 1 Corinthians is addressed to a local church and deals on the whole with its internal dissent and disorder - amongst people who meet together to worship and to eat and to share the Lord's supper - it is people who are in a day-to-day and face-to-face relationship who are falling out. It is a step of interpretation to apply these texts to doceses and provinces. There are other texts like Acts (the Jerusalem Council) which explore the way in which the relationships between (what we might call) different churches were negotiated. Mark
 Posted by: Simon Morden  Friday 3 July 2009 - 08:34pm
Okay, Nersen: the behaviour of the ACNA leaders is clearly discomforting. Let's have a look at what Bishop Nick Baines has to say about the FCA: "The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans will be established on Saturday (as I understand it from a distance). This is a self-indulgent distraction from the real stuff of Christian mission in a fractured world that cries out for reconciliation. FCA is not needed, is a distraction and offers the world yet another example of Christian fracturing. After the irregular ordinations in the Diocese of Southwark several years ago I asked a couple of those involved to show me where they find the biblical sanction for lying, misrepresentation and subterfuge. I have never had a reply. Despite protestations of innocence, the scheming behind FCA does not give us confidence that dodgy behaviour will receive the same biblical or ethical scrutiny as is applied to questions of sexual behaviour." I'm spotting a pattern here. I have good reason to believe that the FCA won't deal ethically with each other, let alone with the wider church. My long supping spoon may require an extension.
 Posted by: Dave  Friday 3 July 2009 - 07:23pm
Simon, I think the case is more like not only taking back your car but stealing your pension fund in a case of wrongful dismissal. James, As far as I am concerned Scripture says nothing to support homosexual relationships and condemns them in several places. I accept that some exegetes have managed to limit these condemnations taken in isolation. However in the context of Christian teaching on marriage and Paul's teaching on the unnatural nature of such relationships this is not the way to go. I am trying to be brief as this is far from the subject of this thread! However I must object to the assumption that because the church has changed it's views on some issues, it will change it's view on this one. David
 Posted by: Celinda  Friday 3 July 2009 - 05:32pm
Re the Punch cartoon on the First Lambeth Conference:  does anyone know if the anxious, angry man carrying the laundry bag with COLENSO at the top of it was meant to represent Bp Colenso himself?  Since the bishop at the washtub is saying "Take 'im away" perhaps the cartoonist meant to refer to the fact that Colenso was not invited to attend.  Sad commentary, I think:  I hadn't known that "The Church's One Foundation" was written in critical response to Colenzo's opinions.  I did know, though, that Colenso believed in racial equality and did quite a bit for the Zulus (a work his descendents continued).
 Posted by: Celinda  Friday 3 July 2009 - 05:19pm
Thanks to Andrew Carey for catching my error.  I certainly did mix up two conferences.  The Colenso situation was debated extensively at the first Lambeth Conference (1867), but it was not the only reason the conference was assembled.  A Wikipedia article of the conferences shows a cartoon in Punch satirizing the First Conference: the title is "A Pan-Anglican Washing Day."  Bishops are shown busily working at a tub marked "Mission."  Another person, looking anxious and angry, is carrying a huge laundry bag marked "Colenso, Church of England, rationalism vs. belief (I think, hard to read), High Church, Low Church, Broad Church, and ___ulism (I couldn't read that one--populism?).  One of the bishops busy at the Mission tub (he is named, but the name is blurred on my screen) is looking at the person carrying the huge bag and saying "Take 'im away--we can't do washing with them things."  There is other information in the cartoon which is illegible.  The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, according to the timeline I am looking at, was discussed at the Third Conference, in 1888.  From several things I have read, it was first suggested in the context of ecumenism.  But it also had to do with "standards of doctrine and worship" within the Anglican communion and with "Anglican identity."       
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Friday 3 July 2009 - 02:42pm
Perhaps this thread should bet back to the FCA..........we have had useful critiques of it from Andrew Goddard and an interesting response to him from Charles Raven but seem to be sidetracked   (you are free to start a property "theft" thread if you want to, Simon....but re law suits, suffice it to say that 1 Corinthians addresses various issues in the church, including law suits....all involved in those are failing in different ways)
 Posted by: James  Friday 3 July 2009 - 01:30pm
David H, your post yesterday evening (7.22 pm) looks more like a response to L Roberts' post which immediately followed mine yesterday morning. I'm not quite sure how it relates to the point I was making about an interpretative process which consistently accommodates those scriptural prohibitions which we do continue to observe and those which we do not. ISTM, for example, that the case you make in relation to homosexual relationships can equally be made to the example I suggested about lending money at interest.
 Posted by: Simon Morden  Friday 3 July 2009 - 11:14am
David H - at the risk of stretching an analogy too far: you might get a company car to go with your job. You're pretty much used to using the car as your own. You put fuel in the tank and pay for it with your own money. But when you quit your job, you mustn't forget who the car actually belongs to. It's not yours. Certainly, you might approach your previous employers with an offer to buy the car from them. It's for them to say yes or no: it might be that they have another employee who could make good use of the car. Instead, what you have here is taking the car with you when you resign, then complaining when the repo men come around with the tow truck. I'm more than willing to be corrected on this - and I hope I will be - but I can't remember reading anything about departing congregations offering to pay for a new church building for the diocese, or suggesting to their erstwhile bishop that they write a cheque for a few million dollars to compensate. Taking stuff that doesn't belong to you, even if you're in the habit of using it daily and have responsibility for its upkeep, is plain wrong, and it's a huge irony that many, many conservatives won't acknowledge that, considering their reasons for leaving their regional church in the first place.
 Posted by: Mark Bennet  Friday 3 July 2009 - 10:57am
David H Romans 13.1 is a good place to start - let every person be subject to the governing authorities ... 13.3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad ... But not wanting to take texts out of context, I realise there is a hermeneutic task here. Romans 13 is cited by some evangelicals as justification for serving in the armed forces (I think there was a book a while back with a debate between JH Yoder, John Stott and another on the text, including on possible exceptions) - or generally in the Church of England to justify Article 37. Mark
 Posted by: Andrew Carey  Friday 3 July 2009 - 10:20am
Celinda wrote: “The idea that all passages in the Bible are equal was brought into play at the time of the Bishop Colenso controversy.  Bishop Colenso said that if certain passages in Genesis on creation were not taken literally, it did not contradict the whole concept of Biblical authority.  Some who called themselves evangelical disagreed.  It took the first Lambeth conference to deal with the crisis, and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral was the result.  Not perfect, not a complete statement of faith by any means.  But it prevented the church's splitting at that time over that particular controversy.”   I don’t recognize Celinda’s description of the Colenso affair, nor of the genesis of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. They are on a slightly different timescale. But the Quadrilateral was certainly not a response to the Colenso controversy. The Lambeth Conference 1867 gathered for the first time to consult  about Colenso. The 1886 Quadrilateral was an ecumenical statement which presented an encapsulation of essential Anglicanism for ecumenical dialogue - ‘home reunion’ with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
 Posted by: Dave  Friday 3 July 2009 - 10:14am
Simon, I find it difficult to keep up with the details of these cases but I think you expression "blatant wrongdoing" is an overstatement. These churches after serious deliberation have found that they are unable to accept the policies or leadership of a parent body. Their main aim is that the same people worship the same God in the same way and in the same place. It should be possible to come to some temporary arrangement whilst their complaint is dealt with. Instead the leaders are using their claim to the property like a big stick to beat them into submission. This does not seem to be the Christian way of dealing with things. The result is of course that evangelical parishes will now organize building funds in separate trusts which will rent the building to the PCC and provide funds for missionary work. Mark, where in particular to you want me to look in Romans 13 David
 Posted by: Roger Hurding  Friday 3 July 2009 - 08:16am
David H, you write, 'Homosexual acts are condemned in various places in Scripture and described in different ways. Some interpreters have emphasized their view of the specific meaning of the words in a very restrictive way. However as scripture gives no indication of support of other homosexual practices, it is more logical to interpret the prohibitions in a broad way.' I’m not sure your argument here is good enough.  Can we really take verses whose meaning is commonly agreed as obscure and say they must apply widely since ‘scripture gives no indication of support of other homosexual ractices’  Can we, as others do, argue that since Jesus was silent on the matter he must have concurred with [our?] reading of Leviticus and therefore we can condemn all gay sex from his silence?  These arguments sound like special pleading. As to I Corinthins 6 and the use of malakoi and arsenokoitai, Michael Vaisey, for example, points out that their precise meaning is obscure.  Malakoi can be seen as meaning ‘wanton’ or ‘loose living’ and arsenokotai as having ‘connotations of slavery idolatry and sexual dominance’.  Similarly Gareth Moore writes that malakoi may indicate the ‘soft’, reflecting the widespread dislike of men in Roman society who lack virility.  With respect to arsenokotai, he shows that the context in both I Corinthians and I Timothy is that of injustice and exploitation and that the condemnation, once more, is not simply of gay sex but of homosexual practice that is ‘unloving and harmful’. I realize these views are tentative but they do at least show that there is a debate to be had and that dogmatism in this area can be seen as just that - dogmatism.
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Friday 3 July 2009 - 07:53am
OK Simon   - do you consider your church building as belonging to your church or your diocese?  Maybe you are ever so strict and stick to what you believe is correct in law to answer that question..... but I must confess that I consider our church building to be ours.....not just because we have paid and do pay a lot towards its maintenance for decades but because it has been our home as a church family for many years. This is partly why I can understand why people might not want to give up their buildings.... especially when they have not deviated from "the mind of the Communion" but are dealing with a bishop who has and that is why they are being sued.....because they correctly want to stick to what the ABC calls "the mind of the Communion" rather than accept the authority of a revisionist with views shared by very few Christians in the AC or outside. It must be hard to walk away from a building which has been your church family home and give it to someone with beliefs which the original donors of the buildings never imagined....people who are where they are because of your "entryist" tactics....i.e. joining and organisation, making vows, then subverting its core beliefs from within....and taking over the organisation "an inch at a time", even to the point of suing for property because some people do not accept the agenda of the "entryist" group but want to stick to what has always been and still is the view of most of their church i.e. the AC.    I have always said that lawsuits are wrong (a la 1 Cor 5-6), the bishops ought not to sue the churches but also the churches maybe should give up the buildings if they are sued in order to avoid going to court.... because the buildings matter little ultimately.   Given the average age in TEC is now getting towards 60 and TEC shrinks almost every month despite being already small in the US, they need the buildings to sell to fund their deficits (and large salaries  - have you seen what Gene and Katie get paid?)  I can see why TECUSA bishops sue, they need the cash.  But thriving churches can meet anywhere.... they need not worry about buildings. You mentioned a plant in Durham about which you seem exercised...... I notice the Bishop of Durham is handling that situation in a way which is not creating further divisions and headlines in the secular or church press.   I suspect you wish he was attacking that plant.....do you? If you have not got it clear yet....I think law suits ought not to be happening in the church (1 Cor 5-6)  and property is not worth fighting over.   Perhaps lawsuits are a symptom of other issues in the church which are also covered in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere
 Posted by: Deleted user 974  Friday 3 July 2009 - 04:49am
I quote myself below and now see that I suggested nothing. And maybe I should ahve suggested something, even though, there's laods on Goggle and all kinds of websites with a special ministry in this time of global anglican listening process! 'Also there is quite a literature of Biblical interpretation that could be used as a resource -- but those who don't wanna know, don't want to  know.' So here is a well regrded book as my suggestion :--- http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Bible-Homosexuality-Revised-Expanded/dp/066423397X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245239878&sr=8-1 And this piece on the history that lives on in the present --the present as gift to you :- http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-almost-everywhere-is-touched-by-the-stonewall-riots-now-1726047.html thank you Jesus  
 Posted by: Simon Morden  Thursday 2 July 2009 - 11:06pm
Sorry, Nersen, but I'm going to press you on this. You've said repeatedly that the buildings belong to the dissenting congregations, that they shouldn't have to give up 'their property' or walk away from 'their own church', that the bishops who then sue for the recovery of the property are those who are in the wrong. If you believe that to be the case, you need to justify your position and not hide behind 'Christians shouldn't take each other to court' - especially when it's being used to excuse blatent wrongdoing. This is not about point scoring - this is about showing that GAFCONs "good evangelicals" can behave just as disgracefully as they claim their opponents do, that they are capable of spreading slander and lies, of using underhand tactics and barefaced hubris when it suits them (because "it's for the Lord", I presume), and these are the same people you seem to think will deal fairly,,justly and honestly with the likes of Fulcrum and the wider church. They are as venal and corrupt as I am. I would like to believe, however, that I have some self-knowledge of that, and would not try and pass myself off as anything other.
 Posted by: Mark Bennet  Thursday 2 July 2009 - 10:22pm
Nersen and David H and others This is not a case of theft, I agree, but of two people claiming rights to the same property. It is a disagreement. In order to decide who is right - what are the precise trusts under which they are held - some process is required. Trustees are under legal obligations in civil law to apply the property of which they are trustees to the purposes of the trust - to fail to do so is a breach of trust. So if someone claims property for a purpose, effectively saying 'it is mine/ours' it seems to me to be a positive duty on the trustees under civil law (diocese in this case) to ensure that the trusts are properly carried out. This is an onerous duty on trustees in the UK - not so sure about the US. Someone has to arbitrate, surely - and trustees with legal precedent in their favour will be told they have an obligation (else they can be sued for breach of trust). Possession is said to be nine tenths of the law - not the whole of it. I agree that these cases should be resolved - but congregations walking away under leadership perfectly well aware that the law is unlikely to be in their favour, seem to me to be trying to pull a fast one: arguing that they should get away with it because of scripture. Well that's why I suggest we need some deeper reflection on the issues of money and power involved here, rather than the simple self-justification by proof-text. How would you apply Romans 13 to these circumstances?
 Posted by: Celinda  Thursday 2 July 2009 - 08:06pm
I didn't say it was contrary to 1 Corinthians.  What I said was that the church treats the behavior differently from extortion, etc. and Lambeth 1.10 is an example.  A complication is that we're not sure from 1 Corinthians whether Paul is talking about promiscuity or not.  He only mentions the behavior.  However, the other behaviors listed have connotations of deliberate, destructive acts--not an ongoing orientation carried out with one partner in an atmosphere not of orgies, but of long  term caring. And although the Bible does not mention leaders with homosexual leanings (Ruth and Naomi "clave" to each other in their grief and David and Jonathan "loved with a love surpassing that of women," but there is no indication there was a sexual component), I don't think anyone would deny that Christian leaders have included a number of homosexuals.  I don't think the church equates that behavior with thievery and wantonness, and it's likely that St. Paul did not either:  we do not know.  Since we do not know, we should not split the church over it.   
 Posted by: Dave  Thursday 2 July 2009 - 07:22pm
James, I am sorry if I did not spell out my thought in sufficient detail. Homosexual acts are condemned in various places in Scripture and described in different ways. Some interpreters have emphasized their view of the specific meaning of the words in a very restrictive way. However as scripture gives no indication of support of other homosexual practices, it is more logical to interpret the prohibitions in a broad way. If we found that in one letter Paul condemned shop lifting and in another burglary, it would be perverse to assume that the omission meant that mugging was O.K. David
 Posted by: Dave  Thursday 2 July 2009 - 07:13pm
So Celinda, if I read you correctly. Lambeth 1:10 is contrary to 1 Cor 6. But which has the priority for a Christian?
 Posted by: Dave  Thursday 2 July 2009 - 07:06pm
As I understand it these churches were built by the local congregations so that the local congregation had a place to worship and have been maintained for generations by these congregations. The formal title may rest with the diocese but this must be on an implied trust for the benefit of the local congregation. Otherwise the assets could be seized at any time for the bishops personal benefit in the great Anglican tradition of Henry VIII. A more appropriate analysis of the substance of the situation is a demerger where each party takes out in proportion to what was put in. The success of the claims by ACC and ECUSA does not prove their morality but their willingness to use expensive lawyers. David
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Thursday 2 July 2009 - 05:38pm
Simon -  do read what I have said on the issue.....i.e. that is a shame that some bishops sue for church buildings and perhaps church buildings should be given up even if the people feel unfairly treated by their bishops....  I understand why it might be hard to give up buildings,  especially to a revisionist who condones behaviour the ABC says "the mind of the Communion" finds incompatible with scripture....but that is not the same as justifying theft..... rather than trying to score points (and failing),  I wish you would read Dr Goddard's piece again and learn from his more constructive attitude to the FCA and his serious crtiticism of it.  
 Posted by: Simon Morden  Thursday 2 July 2009 - 04:16pm
Nersen - it is very clear to me... and in your topsy-turvy world, the ACC and TEC are in the wrong, having to sue in order to get back what is rightfully theirs (as the courts are deciding, under civil, not criminal law). It's certainly a shame that the regional churches have to sue - but the shame in these matters rests entirely with the departing congregations. You keep asking me to agree with you that keeping hold of these buildings is right and proper, and how hard it must be to give them up to apostates and heretics. Hard, perhaps yes, if you've become attached to someone else's bricks and mortar, and are accustomed to using it. But right? Utter nonsense - and, I suspect, you know it. But "good evangelicals" can't be guilty of slander, lies and theft because that would put them on a par with the gays. I hope that dissenting congregations in the CofE are watching carefully, and are wisely deciding that if they do leave, they need to just leave. (The CofE was, of course, the catholic church in England. In other news, those of Saxon and Viking ancestry apologise to the Celts, and President Obama hands back the USA to the First Nations...)
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Thursday 2 July 2009 - 02:58pm
Simon, it should be clear to you.... theft is always wrong....can you show any rector charged by the police with theft?  I don't think there should be lawsuits in the church - it is shame that TECUSA bishops sue churches for their buildings, is it not? Maybe people should just give up their buildings, even if they feel wronged....hard to do.  I guess  you must think the Church of England should return all buildings which were once the property of the RC church?
 Posted by: Celinda  Thursday 2 July 2009 - 02:23pm
I Cor 6 condemns homosexual practice along with fornication, idolatry, adultery, thievery, greed, drunkenness, and extortion. I Lambeth l.10.c says "we commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God...and are full members of the body of Christ.." while  (1.10.d) "rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with scripture."  TEC was wrong to follow 1.10.c while rejecting 1.10.d in the consent to consecrate the Bp. of New Hampshire.  Individual members of TEC who have continued to not only to reject 1.10.d but the moratoria called for by TEC in 2006 are wrong.  However, fornication, idolatry, adultery, thievery, greed, drunkenness, and extortion are treated differently from homosexual practice by the church; individual offenders in the former list are ministered to by members of the church who demonstrate God's love and help them to repentance, but fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, and extortionists are not referred to by  language like the beginning of Lambeth 1.10.c:  "(the conference) recognizes that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation."   Lambeth Conferences have moral force, although they do not have ecclesiastical legal force similar to the constitutions of the individual provinces making up the communion, or to decisions made at the general conventions of individual provinces.  Some leaders in  TEC have erred not only in flouting the moral force of Lambeth, but also in refusing to obey their own GC resolutions.  Does this mean, then, that they should be cast off by forming a new church with a separate authority?  I don't think so.   We need to persevere in talking to each other.  Saying that homosexual practice is the same as thievery, adultery, greed, and extortion goes against Lambeth 1.10, just as ordaining gays to the clergy or blessing same-sex relationships does.     
 Posted by: Simon Morden  Thursday 2 July 2009 - 02:15pm
Nersen - in your reply to me on 1/7/09, you seemed rather concerned to suggest that there are situations where the theft of property from their lawful owners is justified, even to the point of encouraging me to agree with you. I think you mistakenly wrote 'revisionist bishop', where you should have said 'lawful bishop', and 'revisionists' where 'owners' ought to have gone: but if there are situations where people you agree with theologically can steal from people you disagree with theologically, where does that leave the traditional interpretation of your favoured 1 Cor 6 passage?
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Thursday 2 July 2009 - 01:13pm
Thanks for reply, Roger.  I don't find your list helps your argument..... the fact that some, even in the church, were involved in the slave trade just shows our ability to twist the bible to justify our sins. The fact the church may have compromised with usury (do you think it has?) is not a reason to compromise again with other sins....better we should take a great stand against usury and help  poor people in the UK and abroad if we are effective?  Apartheid....again, you raise an issue where a small group tried to justify its sin…..   what are we to do with small groups like that in the AC?  Tolerate them because we dare not say that anything is right and wrong in the light of scripture? Roger, when you say, “I and others have challenged your repeated accusation of revisionism, citing to you Jesus’s revising critique of OT legalism,”   I am sure we can agree that you do not quite have his authority and  I know you do not like the term "revisionist"  but it is a fair description of your view that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong when it says certain behaviour is "incompatible with scripture".....yours is a revisionist position because it is out of line with our AC bishops still today and the RCs and most other Christians and the last 2000 years of Christian tradition and teaching….etc) and, as you know, very few evangelical scholars today are persuaded that your view is correct and many liberals are very clear that they are writing off certain parts of scripture which they think are limited by their time and culture and not applicable for our times as they oppose Lambeth 1.10's conclusion re what scripture teaches (they accept what scripture says what it says but do not think it applies today to situations they define as very different) David H’s point is an important one….where is the positive case from scripture for saying that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong in terms of what it calls incompatible with scripture?    If 2000 years of tradition and most Christians and their leaders in the world today agree with Lambeth 1.10’s interpretation of scripture,   then Roger and others need to counter all the negative language in the OT and NT which supports that view by showing that the behaviour in question is in fact good, holy and pleasing to God.  This case cannot be made from scripture…that is why so many liberals do not even try to make a biblical case but are clear that they feel they have authority to reject certain parts of scripture.    Celinda  - you seem to buy into a "liberal" view to some extent given you say, "although we do not think that it is indeed true that all parts of the Bible are equal"..... so your answer is that we should tolerate the condoning of behavior "incompatible with scripture" in the AC? Fern - yes, I am stressing the positve about the FCA but I do not think it is perfect (even if I feel it is necessary)....  I am glad that Dr Goddard mentioned some of the FCA positives, even though he can see negatives, because there are positives for "open" evangelicals.  I want to see greater evangelical unity, including Fulcrum and Reform leaders working together....who believes that is possible?!     I hope it is one day.... because there is agreement on the core issue i.e. the authority of scripture 
 Posted by: Deleted user 974  Thursday 2 July 2009 - 11:44am
It's not that the Bible has 'nothing positive to say about gay relationships' but that some folks don't wish to notice it, let alone see it. Of course, as already implied there are questions of the methods we employ for reading and studying and using the scriptures. At the moment, some people in the Church make gay relationships a special case-- it is clear to me, that some wish to excommunicate same sex relationships, on non-Biblical grounds. Grounds to do wtih  cultural attitudes which are now out of date in the British Isles, at least. As James says, there is no consistency of hermeneutics. The Bible takes a dim view of the kind Phariseism regularly exhibted by anti-gay churchmen (usually men btw) on lgbt issues.   Also there is quite a literature of Biblical interpretation that could be used as a resource -- but those who don't wanna know, don't want to  know. Oh ! How the Church is impoverished !    
 Posted by: James  Thursday 2 July 2009 - 10:04am
David H said: "As far as I can see Scripture has nothing positive to say on gay relationships." While this may be true, it is not in and of itself a sufficient argument. Scripture also has nothing positive to say about charging interest on loans, or about women praying or prophesying with their heads uncovered (or come to that men doing the same with their heads covered). I am not here arguing about the rightness or wrongness of gay relationships, just for a process of interpretation of Scripture which is consistent across the board. If we say that "Scripture has nothing positive to say about x", is an argument that x is wrong, then we have as part of that package to be ready to show why y, about which Scripture also has nothing positive to say, is an acceptable practice.
 Posted by: Dave  Thursday 2 July 2009 - 08:44am
An interesting list. Half of these matters are still open issues in some quarters. As far as I can see Scripture has nothing positive to say on gay relationships. These are not random condemnations which come out of nowhere. Rather they are an inevitable consequence of the Christian view of marriage. These issues have already been discussed at length. If you are still not convinced, I would suggest you study the thread on Robert Gagnon's article and study his site http://www.robgagnon.net/ David
 Posted by: liddon  Thursday 2 July 2009 - 08:01am
Roger,  thanks for your post and its useful list. Don't forget to add pain relief during childbirth. Church people opposed this because it contradicted the judgement of God in Genesis, which requires that pain should be present in childbirth as a punishment for the sin of Eve.
 Posted by: Dave  Wednesday 1 July 2009 - 09:57pm
Celinda, How do you interpret 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? I think it is difficult to maintain that Paul got it wrong with 2 items on the list and then preach the rest of the verse full strength. It may be possible to restrict the range of these terms by literary analysis but some acts are being condemned. It is difficult not to suspect that some secular argument has found favour and that scripture is being limited by the demands of reason. I think the point is that the church managed to come to at least a provisional agreement in Lambeth 1:10. I know that some to not agree with this and they have every right to argue that the church should change it's stance. It is however wrong to go off and show utter contempt for the vast majority of the AC by consecrating gay bishops or conducting gay marriages before a new understanding is reached. The FCA represents the strength of feeling that the precipitate acts of TECUSA has caused. David
 Posted by: Roger Hurding  Wednesday 1 July 2009 - 08:24pm
Yes Nersen.  I find myself agreeing with Celinda’s challenge to you.  I have queried before those well-thumbed bits of the Bible that you specialize in.  I and others have challenged your repeated accusation of revisionism, citing to you Jesus’s revising critique of OT legalism, as well as the series of revisions throughout church history, each put forward through attempts to interpret Scripture faithfully.  You know the list: usury, contraception, slavery, apartheid, divorce and remarriage, women’s ordination….  And so how can you keep pegging away about ‘false teaching’ and the abuse of the ‘authority of scripture’ when some of us, also reading and rereading the Bible, put to you that the Bible is not unequivocally clear in condemning all gay sexual relationships?  Will that always be a ‘revision too far’ for you?  The issue is not one of bowing to the world’s agenda but of an attempt to be faithful to text and context at the sites of a happy hunting ground for those who are negatively adamant about homosexuality and its expression.
 Posted by: Celinda  Wednesday 1 July 2009 - 06:08pm
"Stance", "argument," profoundly held belief", "conviction" --in your view, those words apparently don't describe what you are saying;  you would prefer, I think, the simple word "truth," and perhaps you think that if you simply tell "the truth" enough times, either you will convince some of us that what you say really is truth--or that you will have done your duty by repeated warnings to all of us, and that you will not tire of repeating those warnings.  The rest of us can follow your example of perseverance:  we can keep on reasoning with you various ways, in the hope of changing your mind that there is no point for the church to allow continued discussion on this topic--or at least "do our duty" by showing you that we are listening, although we do not think that it is indeed true that all parts of the Bible are equal, from which follows the idea that discussions of the particular behavior under discussion  do not mean that we  don't believe in Biblical authority, or that we have ceased to believe that there is sin and that repentance is essential.  Would you agree that  that is what is going on here?   
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Wednesday 1 July 2009 - 04:26pm
Hi Celinda...not sure what you mean by talking about my "stance" on anything.......I did not write Lambeth 1.10 and I did not describe it as "the mind of the Communion"..... it is not my stance on anything which matters but how we deal when some in the church deliberately and consistently go against the mind of the Communion. You seem to be arguing that even if the AC has a position that something is "incompatible with scripture"  (what it is really does not matter...it could be stealing or greed or anything) and even if most of the AC's bishops and clergy hold to that position,  we have to tolerate some condoning behaviour "incompatible with scripture" - is that right?    
 Posted by: Celinda  Wednesday 1 July 2009 - 02:59pm
It's important to remember, I think, that the Rev. Dr. Packer was not singled out; he and a number of those refusing any sort of dealings with their elected bishops, and not wanting to be part of the church in Canada,  were told that they could not keep their buildings if they formed a separate ecclesial organization.  The label "revisionist" is not a universal concept within the church; it is applied in a rather hit or miss way by those who disagree with the teachings of some on matters of sexuality, or with the propriety of allowing teachings on various concepts of the Jesus Seminar by those in ecclesiastical authority.  The best way to counter the teachings of the Jesus Seminar members is through scholarship, such as is done by N.T. Wright.  As far as the sexual issues are concerned, we have gone round and round with this.  Some believe that the Biblical passages prohibiting the controversial behavior are equal to all other passages in the Bible. The idea that all passages in the Bible are equal was brought into play at the time of the Bishop Colenso controversy.  Bishop Colenso said that if certain passages in Genesis on creation were not taken literally, it did not contradict the whole concept of Biblical authority.  Some who called themselves evangelical disagreed.  It took the first Lambeth conference to deal with the crisis, and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral was the result.  Not perfect, not a complete statement of faith by any means.  But it prevented the church's splitting at that time over that particular controversy.  Nersen, your stance on the sexual issues is well-known:  to you, the particular behavior if condoned or allowed to be questioned for an indeterminate period of time demonstrates the loss of respect for Biblical authority, and the giving up of the necessity of repentance for sin.  It makes no difference to you when the counter argument is made:  in no way is the concept of sin or repentance for it given up as essential to the faith.  It is just that homosexual behavior--a particular behavior--is being discussed, with the possibility that belief about it might be changed.  You think it's central to the faith, as you have said over and over again--if homosexual behavior is not considered sin, then no particular behavior is considered sin and everyone may do as they please.  You may think that's a logical consequence, but others strongly disagree with you and I don't know what we are gaining by repeating this discussion over and over again.   
 Posted by: Charles Read  Wednesday 1 July 2009 - 02:43pm
Well it will be no surprise that I was around Durham at the time Christchurch was set up. As I understand it, the money came from St Helen's Bishopgate, Emmanuel Wimblebon and Jesmond PC. At some point I gather Jesmond withdrew - I have heard speculation as to why and as such I will not mention details here. The minister, Tony Jones, came from St Ebbe's. Another curate was due to join in him setting up Christchurch but withdrew. Tony met with several groups in the diocese early on, including the tutors at Cranmer Hall. It became clear that Chrisrtchurch would not be supporting women who felt a call to ordained leadership. The target audience for the church was students - and to be fair Claypath had a large and vibrant student ministry, not least beacause of the excellent preaching of Bob Fyall (who was part time leader of Claypath and part time OT tutor in Cranmer Hall). This would not be a problem if Christchurch had not set out to be an Anglican church - they asked to join the diocese of Durham but could not reach an agreement with +Tom on this. (And this was well after they had set up). While there was a need to continue the URC student minkstry at Claypath which Bob had led, there was no need for another evangelical Anglican church in the city centre which catered for students. Thios whole affair was characterised by a lack of consultation (until it was too late) and an air of entryism. Why not plant in a part of the northeast which actually needed more churches?   
 Posted by: Fern  Wednesday 1 July 2009 - 01:18pm
nersen, you're very determined to look always on the GAFCON/FCA sunny side.  I have heard a prominent member of Reform say that sidelining perfectly orthodox bishops who do not jump on this particular bandwagon is one of the objectives of this new movement - increasingly, those who join the FCA will be encouraged to look to those bishops who are members, even if they are based overseas, as their real leaders.  Please note we're not talking here about the cold-shoulder being given revisionists but about bishops whose orthodoxy is beyond question. It's fine to listen to what FCA is saying but one should also look at what they are doing and what is likely to follow.  The official line is that the FCA is not a schismatic movement but the inevitable consequence of encouraging clergy and laity in the UK to look to Sydney, Lagos, the Southern Cone or anywhere other than their dioceses will be to weaken church structures and increase the liklihood of schism.  Church planting and irregular ordinations may not be a sin (to use your own terminology) but they are undermining acts and when done to orthodox bishops in orthodox dioceses, one has to ask what is the real motive.
 Posted by: Mark Bennet  Wednesday 1 July 2009 - 12:15pm
Nersen If I were to engage constructively with every organisation with which I had some sympathy, I would run out of time to meet parishioners, conduct funerals, prepare sermons, lead worship etc. Since this is the basic vocation to which I am called, and for which I receive a stipend, I have to choose my commitments carefully and listen to what God is calling me to do. There is a great danger in pointing fingers at other sinners (Jesus had a parable about this) - and to me the danger of creating a delineation over issues of sex and sexuality is that issues of money and power get pushed into the background. Richard Foster wrote a book 'Money, Sex and Power' which holds a better balance than we see in current debates. Foster pointed out that the monastic vows of poverty, chastity and obedience deliberately confronted these areas because of the human propensity to fail in all three. Jesus taught a great deal about money - and financial sins were of concern to the early church (Acts 5.1-11). Jesus also taught about service, the proper use of authority etc I do not think that FCA does very well on the power issue: is it right to associate with people who have claimed their own autonomy to make decisions apart from the canonical disciplines to which they have subscribed? (The Canonical discipline exists because of the danger of such things). And for me there are issues about money which seem to be cloudy rather than transparent. My constructive comment would be that theological reflection on these matters is required rather than ecclesial opportunism: and that an account of an ecclesiology consistent with the Anglican tradition would also be a significant step forward. But for myself, I don't see the need for yet another body of this kind, and certainly not one with which I need to engage personally.
 Posted by: DavidR  Wednesday 1 July 2009 - 12:04pm
YFCA. No answers that have convinced me yet but I can't get the tune out of my head now.
 Posted by: James  Wednesday 1 July 2009 - 11:41am
I'll let Simon speak for himself on this, Nersen, but my own take on it is this: if a group is calling upon the Church of England to exercise stricter discipline in some area of the life of the church then it behoves that group to be squeaky clean itself. If it is not then it is liable to the charge that it is hypocritically picking and choosing which parts of church discipline (and come to that which parts of scripture) it wishes to see enforced. So I can't be (say) in favour of the church turning a blind eye to committed homosexual relationships amongst the clergy but insist that it exercises strict discipline over church planting or oath-breaking. On the other hand I can't insist that the church is strict about homosexual relationships and at the same time expect it to overlook oath-breaking and trampling over the faithful ministry of others (even if I so organise that 'trampling' as to be within the letter of the law). As far as engagement with FCA is concerned, for me the jury is still out. I am, for example, an evangelical convinced by scripture of the rightness of the ordination of women as priests, and in God's good time as bishops too. I find it hard to see that I will comfortably fit within the ethos of FCA as represented by the speakers listed in Simon R's earlier post. I also am convinced on the basis of scripture that unity in the CofE is worth working for (though not at any price), and that includes a fundamental respect for its structures. GAFCON/FCA while commendable in many ways invites institutional loyalty to a different set of structures and to a Council of Primates which includes neither the Archbishop of Canterbury, nor the Archbishop of York. That is why prima facie it is divisive, and that impression is only reinforced by its choice to line up as its launch speakers a number of those who have been most vocal about the need for some separate provision for them (third province) within the Church of England if they are going to be able to remain. These two factors make me cautious about FCA and unwilling to commit to it, and it will be interesting to see what kind of words and actions it produces.
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Wednesday 1 July 2009 - 08:29am
Simon and James, Thanks for your replies. ...... but do you want to use the issues you list as reasons for no positive engagement with the FCA or Reform or even your bogeyman in Jesmond?    I hope not.... I find Dr Goddard's approach and questions much more constructive.  I hope you are open to building unity too. Personally, I am more relaxed about a plant in another diocese as that is not "incompatible with scripture" even if it may be rude, it may be unnecessary and it may be a sign of evangelical divisions. I would not justify any of these negative things.....but I do not see that people have sinned by planting a church per se and I am sure that the Bishop of Durham is more than capable of handling his patch anyway.  I do wish to see him and Jensen and Nazir Ali (for example) united and it is sad that they do not seem to be totally united just now. I hope we see more unity between bishops and vicars who really ought to be fully united.....one day, hopefully, we will see that unity and not need FCAs and GAFCONs etc. Simon -  re Packer's church building , I can see  the rightness of just giving the keys to a revisionist bishop who sues for a church property rather than engaging in law suits but I am not sure I would be able to do that, would you?      Even if it is unjust for the faithful parish to give its property to a revisionist bishop who claims it  (as the parish was not paid for by people who could imagine the revisionists that have emerged in leadership positions in the church in the last couple of decades), I wish lawsuits had been avoided....but that would have involved a lot of faithful North Americans walking away from their own churches....very hard to do, even if it is right.  While they maybe should  give up property as it matters little ultimately, I cannot see that they should accept the authority of a revisionist bishop when doing so involves accepting a reduction of the authority of scripture. So, if many Anglicans in North America cannot accept the authority of a revisionist bishop but they are in line with most of the AC, rather than seeking to stay in the AC (with ACNA, under the authority of Anglican Primates) and stand up for the 39 articles and "the mind of the Communion" on presenting issues, you think they should just leave?   It seems to me that people in ACNA are showing a great deal of commitment to remaining Anglican...was not the "confessing church" idea from a chat with the ABC?  As for the FCA, they are also showing commitment to being Anglican but are making a statement that many people of various traditions will not accept the CofE being taken "an inch at a time" in a revisionist direction....as it has in the last few decades.  I cannot see it is wise to say that we are not as bad as TECUSA so there is no need to stand up against for the 39 articles and the authority of scripture now.... what is to oppose in doing that?  Perhaps that is why there is broad support for the FCA ..... If you do not like what the FCA are doing, what should they do?   Give loyalty to the ABC and wait more years and years without making a fuss?  That has been effective, right?   I could see the merit in that if, for example, Jamaica had not been subverted and the Ridley Draft (which even seems acceptable to some GAFCON leaders) had been sent to the provinces....but, unsurprisingly, all we got was more delay....because a tiny minority in the AC who will never sign it wanted more delay.   Windsor has not been implemented (see Lambeth invitations, see the JSC members).  Are the FCA supposed to give loyalty and wait while years and probably decades pass with no resolution despite a clear majority in the AC which can be united UNLESS we try to force unity with revisionists?  What should the FCA be doing? 
 Posted by: Peter Carrell  Tuesday 30 June 2009 - 07:09pm
Hi Simon Recently, and accidentally, I discovered the Christ Church Durham website. Exploring it, sparked by the curiosity of one who used to worship at St Nick's Durham and walked past the Claypath United Reform church to get to St Nick's, I learned that it was the latter searching for a new future which led to the formation of Christ Church (with the aid of Jesmond Parish). As far as I could tell from information on the site, Christ Church has no formal connection with Jesmond (being a separate trust), has no formal connection with any Anglican Communion bishop or diocese, but does claim support for GAFCON. I expect it will have a representative or two at the FCA meeting. But I fail to understand how strengthened powers for C of E bishops would deal with such a church plant in the heart of a famous evangelical parish ... unless they were civil powers which included arrest, for, as far as I could see this church operates from rented buildings (i.e. no building to sequester and close down) ... or unless 'Anglican' was a trademarked brand name exclusively owned by the C of E ... We live in post-modern times and may need to get used to strange and unprecedented appearances of Anglicanism. But the good news of post-modern times is that no one leader or group will command such a majority that there will be a catacysmic split in the C of E, or the Communion. There is no John Stott (50s/60s version) around whom evangelicals will unite, nor is there a Martyn Lloyd-Jones whom evangelicals might unitedly follow into a separated future.
 Posted by: Simon Morden  Tuesday 30 June 2009 - 02:28pm
Thanks, James - I'd actually forgotten about Christchurch! It was very rarely mentioned in Jesmond, although Jesmond clergy go and preach on occassions. Much more recent is www.holytrinitygateshead.org.uk which is also in the heathen part of Tyne and Wear. The minister there was 'ordained' (and I do use the scare quotes on purpose) by Martin Morrison of the Church of England in South Africa, a church not in communion with the CofE, and done after a discernment process of no more than a couple of hours. Another of the staff at Jesmond was done at the same time. Then there was Ed Moll at Walkergate back when he refused to have the Bishop of Newcastle lay hands on him or swear canonical obedience. I have no idea who Rod and Ian swore obedience too. But for bishops to address these issues, perhaps they need stronger powers in church law? Nersen - what should Packer do? A strange question. Perhaps he should have done what I did - leave and go elsewhere, taking nothing with him. Perhaps he should have returned his licence, handed the keys of the church to his erstwhile bishop and set up shop next door - Gameliel and all that. Instead, he and his vestry decided to duke it out with the ACC. As the courts south of the 49th parallel are consistantly showing, the buildings belong to the wider church, not the temporary residents. As to confusing many issues - no. The many issues have coalesced into one: who runs the CofE? The answer, while it may actually be no one, certainly isn't GAFCON/FCA.
 Posted by: James  Tuesday 30 June 2009 - 12:27pm
Nersen, when Simon referred to border crossing - the context of his post made me think of Christchurch Durham which was effectively brought into being by Jesmond Parish Church, in the heart of the the parish of that well known hotbed of false teaching, St Nicholas Durham, under the episcopal authority of that godless liberal Bishop N T Wright. (Of course the legalities were set up in such a way that it would be difficult to bring it home legally to the door of the Vicar of Jesmond - but it was pretty plain at the time what was happening.) Then there are two or three cases where clergy and parishes have invited bishops other than their diocesan to conduct confirmation services without even consulting their diocesan, and in some cases with a degree of publicity intended to show their repudiation of their diocesan - in one case where he would not subscribe to some particular form of words that the parish demanded that he use if they were to accept his ministry. When I was ordained and licensed to any particular post it always included a promise that I would "pay true and canonical obedience to the Bishop of [the Diocese] and any other bishop for the time being set in authority over me in all things lawful and honest". I can oppose what he teaches, but I am bound by my promise to do what he asks provided it is lawful and honest. If I can't live with that I shouldn't make the promise. If I find myself in circumstances where I can't keep the promise then I should resign from my post.
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Tuesday 30 June 2009 - 08:37am
I read your post, Simon -  that is why I asked you some questions.........as you seem easily to make assertions with no basis....eg which rector should be disciplined for the dismissal of someone from an Oxford hall? No rector was involved.....and I notice the council of the Hall you have in mind are not as critical of the Principal as you seem to be, given he is still in his job, but I guess you have more of the facts than them?  Also,  if there are irregular ordinations (you say there are), then bishops can address those issues....I have not said they should not..... I do not know which you have in mind (as you have said) but why have they not acted?  Maybe nothing so serious has happened to warrant action? You also make the false assertion.that I "can't see" some clergy in London - any evidence for that?   Ironic that you claim I do not see some people when below you confidently asserted that no conservative evangelicals go into inner city areas......that is simply false, I guess you "can't see" them but you feel very free to assert negative things against conservative evangelicals, it seems.  Maybe you are still not over your discontent or anger with your last parish and that results in this kind of false assertion against conservatives? You mention "border crossing"......there has been no foreign oversight established in England but I guess you still want to insist we only talk about the CofE on this thread......so re "border crossing", are you really suggesting UK evangelicals should not support J I Packer and his church as they stand up for the authority of scripture given they have a revisionist bishop?   Are we to criticise him for being part of a church involved in  "border crossing"?    What do you suggest J I Packer and his church do?   It seems to me that you are confusing many issues.  The FCA only launches on 6th July..... blaming it for everything with which you disagree in the last few years is pointless.... what is wrong with what it is setting out to do?  As Dr Goddard's very good article makes clear, there is much to be positive about in the FCA's aims and an opportunity to build evangelcal unity.  I hope Dr Goddard's constructive questions get a constructive response because building unity is always the right thing to do amongst people who accept the authority of scripture.
 Posted by: Simon Morden  Monday 29 June 2009 - 11:13pm
Nersen - I'm guessing you didn't actually read my post, just in the same way you can't see the very many gay clergy in London. So, no, not for refusing to wear robes, but for those who: have thrown off the authority of their bishops, conducted irregular ordinations, engaged in unagreed border-crossing church plants, illegally dismissed lecturers from Oxford halls and then attempted deny the same, refused the headship of their primate while looking to a self-appointed external council. You can add to this witholding their parish share. I know of more irregulars than just Coekin's, and Jesmond has planted a church in Durham's patch. I find it ironic that you demand tighter church discipline then say "sometimes such legalism needs to be challenged and disregarded." If you find the existing lax application of the rules irritating, imagine how you'd chafe under your proposed iron hand. Or is it that church law only applies to your enemies and not your friends?
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Monday 29 June 2009 - 08:01pm
Simon  - I see lots of evangelicals (of all types, some very posh!) working in inner city London.....not sure why you think conserative evangelical people will not go to hard areas, they do....and they could have much nicer lives outside London. Also not sure why you think conservative evangelical rectors will be locked out if wehave proper church discipline and less "don't ask, don't tell" hypocrisy.... disciplined for what?  Not wearing the right robes....because apostles had lots of expensive, special clothes to set them apart from everyone else, of course?  Re irregular ordinations, I hope you realise that Rev Coekin was not found guilty (even if some "open" evangelicals wanted to see him disciplined)  So, I am not sure what ordinations you are thinking of.... Re boundary crossing, there have been none in the CofE ...... but please show me where St Paul or St Peter teach the early church that they must not go into an area even if there is another pastor/teacher there even if he is a false teacher?  I can see that boundary crossing may offend legalistic approaches to parishes and diocese but sometimes such legalism needs to be challenged and disregarded.
 Posted by: Simon Morden  Monday 29 June 2009 - 05:18pm
Nersen - we certainly don't gain anything by believing the CofE is in the same position as TEC. The FCA certainly do - "another man's wife has run off with Mr Liberal! I must be vigilant that mine does not do the same!" Except by vigilant, the husband doesn't think of wooing her, but of chaining her up. I'm pretty certain you'd find an increased emphasis on church discipline exceedingly uncomfortable: it's not those you call liberal who have thrown off the authority of their bishops, conducted irregular ordinations, engaged in unagreed border-crossing church plants, illegally dismissed lecturers from Oxford halls and then attempted deny the same, refused the headship of their primate while looking to a self-appointed external council... what's sauce for the goose, and all. This is before we get on to the 'agreed position of the church' on women in the episcopate. The embarrassing reality is that if you have sufficiently robust disciplinary measures to go after the gay clergy (who, depending on various sources, might make up a large minority in inner city parishes where no evangelical will go), many ConEvo luminaries who've spent the past decade bad-mouthing their diocesan will find themselves abruptly locked out of their churches. Frankly, I prefer the fudge we have at the moment to that scenario.
 Posted by: Celinda  Monday 29 June 2009 - 03:55pm
Nersen is right, in a sense, when he says the election of the Bishop of New Hampshire was an example of "entryist" tactics.  It was certainly open; however, it was said at the time that the calling of an openly gay bishop was simply a local matter.  Some bishops and deputies voted to confirm his election for that reason:  respect for the local diocese.  However, the pattern set by a previous controversial ordination/consecration process--the role of women--began with local choice, but after around 10 years, the "conscience clause" was taken out (I think in 1997) and according to canon law, no one may be denied ordination on the grounds of gender.  Because of that pattern, the group highly critical of TEC's actions began forming instantly:  local choice had been shown not to last very long in the preceding instance,and the freedom to deny ordination on the basis of sexual orientation (carried out in practice) looked as though it wouldn't last very long, either.  The issue in the minds of many has become a social justice issue, which precludes "freedom of conscience" on the grounds of theological differences. 
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Monday 29 June 2009 - 03:49pm
Simon - I don't think we gain anything by pretending that in the CofE we do not face exactly the same issues as TECUSA eg the authority of scripture and discipline in the church. Is "don't ask, don't tell" completely unknown in the CofE?   Unsurprisingly, we are better at sweeping things under the carpet in England....... not necessarily healthy.   If you only want to talk of the CofE, are there not people in leadership and teaching positions in the CofE who openly condone behaviour which the ABC says "the mind of the Communion" views as "incompatible  with scripture"?   Those people are a minority in the CofE, sure, but they are inside and being housed and paid while they quite openly undermine the agreed position of the church..... you might call that "entryist" behaviour.  How should the CofE deal with such people? Has it any right to ask people to stick to the 39 articles, the creeds, agreed positions of the church??    I don't think St Paul taught the early to operate any "don't ask, don't tell" policy with regard to life and doctrine of leaders/teachers/pastors - integrity is lost by all with that approach, is it not?
 Posted by: Simon Morden  Monday 29 June 2009 - 02:08pm
Nersen - yet again you bring up a situation in TEC, yet the thread is about the FCA in the UK. I know it's boring to repeat this all the time, but if all the FCA are trying to do is to get the CofE to stick to what the CofE already says it believes in, then why are they organising in the CofE? If I continually told my wife "You must stay true to your wedding vows!" when she shows no sign of being untrue, has no history of being untrue or any indication that she will be untrue in the future - an outside observer may conclude our marriage was in grave danger. Unfortunately, the CofE is in a much worse position because the FCA already have a mistress lined up just in case.
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Monday 29 June 2009 - 07:34am
Simon M & Pluralist..... since the FCA and GAFCON  want the CofE and AC to stick to the 39 articles, and Lambeth 1.10 respected as "the mind of the Communion" (the ABC's words) and can pretty much sign up to Ridley Draft (given Noll has shown how similar the Jerusalem Declaration is to that draft of the proposed covenant).........  they must be way of out line with most Anglicans in the world and entryists seeking to subvert the larger organisations? As for "entryist tactics", one classic tactic is "putting facts on the ground" in the subversion of an organisaion which does not accept an agenda desired by a minority. For example, in an international communion, one could take a small diocese of around 10k people, say in New England, and get a small number of them to vote for someone as bishop who is not acceptable to most clergy and laity in a larger group (see the ABC's Lambeth invitations if you do not believe me re acceptability), and then let the larger group live with the fait accompli and divisions resulting..... forcing the agenda through "entryist tactics"   (having failed to persuade many through theological arguments in the last few decades)?    If the "entryists" are those calling for the CofE and AC to stick to the 39 articles and "the mind of the Communion", then the organisation really has no problems and is wonderfully united!
 Posted by: Deleted user 1222  Sunday 28 June 2009 - 04:16pm
Oh please, not "FCAUK". You know what that almost looks like. They really don't do a good job on these arranging of letters, whether it's GAFCON (gaffe and a con) or FOCAs (rather obvious). That's what you get when small groups decide these things, because you don't get the other person saying, 'Do you realise what this looks like?'
 Posted by: Dave  Sunday 28 June 2009 - 04:03pm
Simon, Pornographers - that was directed my side discussion with Liddon. The point about Jim Packer is that he and many others had no alternative to walk out of synod when it passed rules condoning immorality. St john's has co-operated in all attempts to mend the tare but the Canadian church has insisted in departing from scripture and thus become schismatic. The point of the primates council is that it says collectively what the primates have said individually that they accept the spiritual legitimacy of the ACNA. The problem is that ++Rowan Williams is a closet revisionist who agrees with TECUSA and the Canadian church and has failed to give clear leadership to the Anglican Communion. The fact is that the Anglican church is not proclaiming the gospel effectively in many parts of England as the membership figures show and where bishops do not believe in that sort of thing the faithful clergy can only work around them. I should say that these are my views and not those of the FCA but as far as I can see we have been failed by the likes of Gladwin, Hallatt and Jenkins. David
 Posted by: Deleted user 974  Sunday 28 June 2009 - 02:52am
Their actions drown out their gospel, for me, alas. I wonder what scope for gospel they have now.   But as Keble remarked, "You will always find the Church of England in my parish" -so there is hope.   And being the national church we have some  protection from their entryist ways.    
 Posted by: Simon Morden  Saturday 27 June 2009 - 11:17pm
David H - pornographers? Where the blazes did that come from? So, yes: the FCAs stated aims. Point one is best done through the deaneries, diocese and the General synod. By being part of the structure, inside that big tent we call the CofE. Point two... you could always just have a whip-round. But the FCA is the child of GAFCON and adheres to the Jerusalem Declaration - which sets up an alternative structure to the existing AC, with its own self-selecting Primates' Council. Again I'll ask, "why are the FCA organising in the CofE?". Regarding Jim Packer - forgive me if I've got the chronology wrong, but didn't his church vote to leave the ACC and join the Southern Cone in Feb 2008? Didn't +Ingham ask Packer and the other clergy if they were abandoning their licenses in March 2008? Didn't he give them two months to decide? Didn't they return their licenses in May 2008? Hardly the stuff of martyrdom... Except, that's not the story put about by the ACNA crowd, is it? This is what I mean by lies, half-truths and dissembling, and what I mean by not believing such behaviour is possible from 'good evangelicals'. It might not 'do' to shine a light on such shennanigans, but I've never been one for whitewashing tombs.
 Posted by: Dave  Saturday 27 June 2009 - 08:53pm
Simon, The goals of the FCA are stated on their website as: 1. The proclamation and defense of the gospel ... especially in and through Anglican churches. Surely this is what Fulcrum wants! 2. Provide aid to those faithful Anglicans who have been forced to disaffiliate from their original spiritual homes by false teaching and practice. As far as I am concerned the way the Canadian church has treated Dr Packer is a sufficient reason to support this organisation. This talk of entryism is very loose. Entryism involves an infiltration of an organisation by subterfuge involving a group joining an organisation whose aims they do not accept. The leadership of the FCAUK all seem to be faithful servants of the church of long standing. It really will not do to liken them to pornographers or accuse them of lies, half-truths and dissembling. David
 Posted by: Simon Morden  Saturday 27 June 2009 - 05:44pm
Nersen - given that the thread title includes only the UK and Ireland, and is therefore not about the wider Anglican Communion, and that the discussion is about why the FCA are organising within the CofE, I can only conclude you either don't understand the question, or you understand it all too well and seek to obfuscate the answer. It is clear to both critics of the FCA and neutral commentators, that the FCA and GAFCON are using entryist tactics. You disagree because you can't see a situation where evangelical leaders (like all leaders, everywhere, at some time or other) will use lies, half-truths and dissembling to get what they want. You're bound to believe Jensen, Sugden and co. TEC are not using entryist tactics, because everything they do is done out in the open. You can disagree with them and the direction they are heading, and argue that they are splitting the communion: but entryist they are most definitely not. Entryism is by definition something that is done in secret, by appearing to be one thing and being another. The FCA themselves cannot give a straight answer to "why are you organising in the CofE?". I don't wonder why.
 Posted by: Deleted user 1222  Saturday 27 June 2009 - 03:10pm
David H says: "Thus Rowan Williams will realize the likely reaction to further unsuitable appointments and the perceived need for a split will not arise." So the FCA exists as a threat, then, to limit appointments? As for the people, some of the people. Not the people I talk to, or the notices on the wall. The assumption that lay people are all fully signed up to credal lists being let down by some clergy and leadership is simply not so. Many lay people come with a good dose of agnosticism and believing breadth and the leaders respond to them. Eric Heffer described the people of Militant as "good socialists" and many were strained at what Kinnock did. Militant was fed up with Labour Party revisionisms and compromises with political types outside socialism. I remember a friend at the time of growing controversy with Militant saying the SDP types will have to be rooted out - they were the enemy. But the SDP types left, and formed their own. What Kinnock did was take Labour towards the road where it ended up more than covering the ground of the SDP, indeed any radicalism of the SDP found its way inside the progressive individualism (strengthening the collective side) of the Liberal Democrats. Labour did it because ideology was bust and because it needed to be elected. My point is the Church needs to speak a language people understand, and it won't forever going into the purities of ideology speak as with FCA - an FCA where the parallels with Militant as "good socialists"/ 'good evangelicals' are all over the place.
 Posted by: Celinda  Friday 26 June 2009 - 04:15pm
Good question.  Interesting that he confirmed you!  I bought a book by him recently called I Believe in Mission, read some of it (it sounded evangelical) and gave it away to someone who was interested in him.  I see on-line that Coggan's biography of him calls him a "bishop, evangelist, and pastor" in the title.  I did not know him, but I did know the  Rev. Sam Shoemaker when he was rector of Calvary, Pittsburgh--he had a great influence on me (I was 19 when we moved to Pittsburgh, transferred to Cornell U., and read his sermons in the mail every week, besides going to Calvary when I was at home, which included two years after I graduated from Cornell).  My husband took confirmation classes from him, and I think we were one of the last couples he married (1961).  He died in 1963.  He's my idea of what an evangelical was/is.  Not narrow at all, just full of the faith and wanting to bring people to Christ.  Since Sam's wife, Helen, worked with Cuthbert Bardsley in the early days of the Anglican Fellowship of Prayer --and he spoke at prayer conferences--I assumed Bardsley was evangelical.  I did hear that the C of E was not interested in what Americans had to say about small group prayer and may not have been interested in hosting an international conference, which I think Bp Austin Pardue (Pittsburgh; it was he who named the Anglican Fellowship of Prayer, hoping that it would really be a communion-wide fellowship) wanted.     I'm the present corresponding sec'y and web coordinator of the AFP US Council;  we became much smaller after 2003 and are now all-volunteer.  But we still exist and still send out the newsletter.  I have copies of nearly all the old newsletters and will see what more I can find about Cuthbert Bardsley.  --There are AFP chapters in Canada and in the Caribbean, but as far as I know, not in the UK (although it would be very nice if there were one).   
 Posted by: Dave  Friday 26 June 2009 - 11:23am
Pluralist, As i understand it the FCA is not a "pure church" movement as FiF and Reform disagree on many points. It is a we cannot accept movement. In general calling untruth truth and sin righteousness. In particular regarding homosexual relationships as a holy way of life. The crunch came in America and Canada when they were told to accept a homosexual bishop and bless same sex unions. As this is not the situation in the UK, the FCA has no basis and no declared intention to push for a split. The FCA does confirm that traditionalists have a voice. Thus Rowan Williams will realize the likely reaction to further unsuitable appointments and the perceived need for a split will not arise. Yes the FCA may result in a realignment within Anglicanism. This cannot be a case of the tail wagging the dog but rather the church listening to the people. The FCA brochure states it's aims include a renewing of Anglicanism in the UK amd a demonstration of support for ACNA ( is this a clue as to timing) It is the nature of a broad church to have reform movements from the left and right. It is good that some disagree with them. It is only in this ongoing debate that the church progresses. It is not helpful to condemn them on the basis of your Machiavellian theories which are presented without evidence. I know little of Baha'i Faith but I can see the logic of you example and think of other self improvement cults this applies to. All I would say is that this is not how mainline evangelicalism works, although I can see signs of it in prosperity gospel teachers and prophetic networks. The reason is that evangelicalism recognizes a multiplicity of respected teachers who are often critical of each other and has a theological method which encourages personal thought and a critical approach leaders. Any condemnation of the FCA is premature. Let them set their stall up properly before you judge their wares. I suppose the suspicion is that at some time in the future, they will headline an anti-feminist agenda. If that time comes,I think their popularity will drop like a stone. There is no need for tactical opposition. David
 Posted by: Dave  Friday 26 June 2009 - 10:27am
Tony, David Bebbington describes Cuthbert Bardsley as " a full time [Oxford] grouper in the 1930's [who] gave encouragement to Charismatic activities .. in the 1970s" see Google groups and search for "Cuthbert Bardsley evangelical" Thus Bebbington analyses him in the evangelical stream. David
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Friday 26 June 2009 - 08:54am
What is so exciting about GAFCON and the FCA is how broad these groups are..... conservative, charismatic and open evangelicals working with anglocatholics..... all potentially able to sign the Ridley Draft.  Despite the    Is there such a broad support for the position of TECUSA and Changing Attitude in the CofE or the AC?    Simon Morden -    who has used "far-left, entryist tactics" in the AC?  Can it really be the majority in the AC who have little problem in signing the Ridley Draft of the covenant and want the church to stick to its founding articles and remain consistent with 2000 years of biblical teaching on moral issues and the vast majority of Christians in the world today?   Or is the "entryist" tag more accurately used re the small minority  which is desperately trying to avoid a covenant in the AC and wants the church to go outside the mainstream of Christian tradition and take a looser attitude to scripture?    Which group is a minority wanting to change the majority?  Which group is wanting  a departure from tradition?   Which group ignored the pleas of the ABC in 2003 and presented the AC with a fait accompli i.e. trying to force the majority to accept a change by putting facts on the ground?  Is that the kind of "far-left, entryist tactic" you are thinking of i.e. trying to force the agenda, betting on no response from the majority? Militiant in the 1980s Labour Party were neither the majority nor seeking to keep the party to its original principles....they were a minority seeking to subvert the party to their own agenda....that is why Kinnock and others had to stand up to them ultimately  -  for the survival of the party, before they destroyed it.  Who are the minority in the AC seeking to change it to their agenda?  Strange to try and paint people wanting the organisation to stick to its traditional values (and attitude to scripture) and which has the support of the majority in the AC in this as "entryist".   Of course, one "entryist tactic" is to smear opponents....... the anger vs GAFCON and FCA is that there is so much support globally and even in the CofE, it is not just Reform but broad -  in fact, very Anglican in its ability to deal with differences while retaining a core set of beliefs.  This is not convenient or the "entryist" agenda which does not share that core set of beliefs but wants the majority to be passive and accept it nonetheless.
 Posted by: liddon  Friday 26 June 2009 - 08:16am
David H: In fuller answer to your question: When Penguin announced plans to publish Lady Chatterley's Lover in 1960, the Home Office tried to stop them in court. They failed because they could find only one witness for the prosecution, compared to the 35 academics who testified to the work's literary merit. And if the jury had any doubts that the establishment was out of touch, the infamous remark by the prosecuting QC, Mervyn Griffith-Jones helped them decide: "Ask yourselves", he blustered, "is it a book you would wish your wife or servants to read?" With the ban overturned, Lady Chatterley's Lover sold two million copies in a year. My post about wives and servants was a light-hearted way of saying that I wouldn't want anyone to have to listen to that crew of speakers.
 Posted by: Tony  Thursday 25 June 2009 - 02:17pm
As a matter of sheer curiosity, Celinda: do you know if Cuthbert Bardsley was or thought of himself as an evangelical? He confirmed me back in the early 60s (I think) in an evangelical parish church, and he never struck me as being one of us back then. ;) Tony
 Posted by: Deleted user 1222  Thursday 25 June 2009 - 01:20pm
You can talk to supporters and they'll be full of enthusiasm, I'm sure: why, because they think this is the big one, to take over the unenthused? I used to go to Unitarian regional and national gatherings, full of good ideas and experimentation, to arrive back at base and then realise normality again. My point was the lines of authority. Here is another example. People attracted to the Baha'i Faith were those warming to its syncretism, equality and peace. The Firesides Baha'is keep are warm fellowship occasions. When they sign up, they join a literalist, 19th century ideas, Administrative Order that is exclusive regarding membership and democratic centralist being male only at the top and anti-outside politics - and it's not like they thought. However, the question is, if Baha'i membership is made up of people full of the joys of spring and full of love, peace and openness and public service, isn't that in the end what will happen? Well no, because in the end that administrative order presses down on them, mainly in the extraction of money, but also obedience and also in any representation of Baha'i ideas. This is why there is now a whole community of non-Administration Baha'is linking up on the Internet. My point is that this FCA will not want to be of the kind that splits again, and it will keep control. But it is there not just to add to the number of pressure groups but to do a job. The job is to change things, and that means cracking a few eggs on the way. It will never change anything unless it sorts out evangelical division first, and the way to do it is to keep control of itself and to weaken the open evangelical position so that there is only one evangelical position left. And then it can impose its own model of international Anglicanism. It is not realignment but takeover. The Americans and Canadians are fortunate that the replacement strategy there leaves TEC and the ACC alone to get on with their own jobs, but increasingly the British isles will find its Anglicanism interfered with. That's unless anyone does something about the FCA, but it is helped by the fact that no one will.
 Posted by: Dave  Thursday 25 June 2009 - 12:23pm
+Pete, You say that the timing is "particularly inopportune" Am I missing something? I think that the continuing FCA just expresses an excitement that God is still working throughout Anglicanism experienced at Gafcon. Particularly encouraging is that evangelicals are working together with Anglo Catholics. This must strengthen the creedal orthodoxy of the church. David
 Posted by: Dave  Thursday 25 June 2009 - 12:11pm
Liddon, Before my time!
 Posted by: Deleted user 974  Thursday 25 June 2009 - 12:06pm
'... and you'll find a real excitement on their part about the experience of being there and the fellowship they shared. There's nothing sinister about it from their point of view; few of them have a macropolitical agenda ..' '..you'll find a real excitement..' Well, of course, it is exciting ! But not necessarily for the spiritual reasons implied ! If only more FoCAs and church folk generally had an analysis or extensive work on themselves in some form. 'Know thyself' is surely the bedrock of any moral or creative life --let alone of sprituality and discernement and living the gospel. When one group separate off or distinguish themselves from another there is bound to be a great deal of excitment and libido in the Jungian sense.  Even more so, if the group is distinguishing it self on the basis of its own rectitude or goodness. Never heard of splitting, projection and projective identification ?   E.g. Look at the buzz and fellowhip at football and sport matches, and political rallies, and groups working for a cause towhich they ahve sacrifically committed themselves. But without those naughty gays, lesbians and liberals (and women ministers ? ) to get worked up over --wouldnt the FoCA meetings soon feel rather lack-lustre ?    
 Posted by: Simon Morden  Thursday 25 June 2009 - 10:55am
Pete - I appreciate that you're older and wiser (I hope so - bishops, like policemen, should always be older...), but I think it would be wiser still to keep Adrian's analysis in mind. The way the FCA has emerged does have many superficial similarities to far-left entryist tactics - and I'd be cautious that those seeming coincidences didn't run a great deal deeper. I know you've been reading the SoF thread on this - Freejack's comment, "The FCA is either separatist or at least potentially separatist as a contingency. If they weren't why bother?" rings clearly and worringly true. I've also been talking to FCA people: I'd suggest that what they say in public to your Grace is different to what they've said to me, the bolshy pewsitter. There is a certain amount of taqqiya going on here.
 Posted by: liddon  Thursday 25 June 2009 - 08:26am
David H, are you familiar with the Chatterley trial?
 Posted by: Pete Broadbent  Wednesday 24 June 2009 - 10:23pm
I don't share Pluralist's ideological suspicion about FCA. There is a much more basic thing going on. Talk (as I do when I meet them) to UK-based GAFCON and FCA supporters and enthusiasts, particularly those who attended GAFCON, and you'll find a real excitement on their part about the experience of being there and the fellowship they shared. There's nothing sinister about it from their point of view; few of them have a macropolitical agenda (though some of them will have). But they just don't get why the rest of us haven't signed up and joined. Whereas I just don't get why the launch in the UK is needed. So there's a kind of mutual uncomprehension going on. FCA folk want as many as possible to turn up (though, as with GAFCON, it's at a partcularly impossible time of year diary-wise). Many of the rest of evangelical Anglicans are asking the sort of questions that have been aired on this thread, and would see the timing as particularly inopportune in relation to where things are in the CofE. But that's not to say that there isn't still a realignment question ready to stare us in the face further down the road. There's not, in my opinion, much left to commend ECUSA and the Canadians, and FCA is needed in their context if not in ours...
 Posted by: Celinda  Wednesday 24 June 2009 - 08:42pm
Pluralist may not be aware of the Rev. Samuel Shoemaker, who was a well-known evangelical in ECUSA in the 1940s and 1950s; at that time, evangelicals in Anglicanism were somewhat unusual.  His wife, Helen, started the Anglican Fellowship of Prayer (named in 1958) and Bp Cuthbert Bardsley of the C of E participated in the first couple of international conferences.  The Shoemakers (and Bardsley, as far as I know) were not by any means exclusivists out to divide the church.  (Shoemaker, by the way, is on the list of 2009  proposed additions to Lesser Feasts and Fasts for his work with Alcoholics Anonymous).      
 Posted by: Deleted user 1222  Wednesday 24 June 2009 - 05:01pm
I'd like to suggest that there is a different motivation to FCA and it is to weaken Open Evangelicalism. The history of Evangelicalism within the Anglicans and further afield, as evidenced by Fulcrum itself, is division. In that people here are being 'invited in' is not to create yet another body that will divide. That will be prevented by the way this body is run, and where it goes back to - the method and background to the Jerusalem Declaration. The first stage is to weaken Open Evangelicalism by taking those in who might be sympathetic. Once it is weakened then the liberals proper - like those who were listening to Keith Ward recently, but far broader than them, can be opposed in terms of legitimacy.
 Posted by: Fern  Wednesday 24 June 2009 - 01:37pm
Peter, yes, it would be more accurate to say that Archbishop Jensen is oppsed to women's priestly ordination.  But that's a tad hair-splitting - he clearly believes that no ordained woman should be in the position of leading a mixed gender group.
 Posted by: Dave  Wednesday 24 June 2009 - 10:28am
Liddon You have servants?
 Posted by: Peter Carrell  Tuesday 23 June 2009 - 08:16pm
The position of the Diocese of Sydney on the ordination of women is more complex than Fern's comment implies ("Peter Jensen, one of THE key players in GAFCON is vehemently opposed to women's ordination"). Men and women are ordained as deacons in the Diocese of Sydney. The Diocese has been moving to a position in which deacons are ordained as presbyters only when an appointment of that person as a rector of a parish is in view. Such deacons-become-presbyters will only be male, but there will come a time, if it has not already been reached, when most clergy in Sydney will be deacons and not priests. There is always the interesting question of how many female deacons will be permitted by local parish custom and/or the disposition of their rectors to preached to mixed gender congregations ... But it is inaccurate to describe Archbishop Peter Jensen as 'vehemently opposed to women's ordination'.
 Posted by: liddon  Tuesday 23 June 2009 - 06:31pm
Would you want your wife or your servants to attend this meeting? I know I wouldn't.
 Posted by: Simon Cawdell  Tuesday 23 June 2009 - 05:47pm
Simon R, This rather makes my point for me. Included in the list are at least six known opponents of the ordination of women, notwithstanding a couple whose views I do not know. The only woman is the only lay speaker. Intentional or just unfortunate?
 Posted by: Simon R  Tuesday 23 June 2009 - 04:02pm
Baroness Caroline Cox is a female speak at FCA on 6th July. Also featured are: Bishop Keith Ackerman (FiF, North America) Archbishop Peter Jenson (Sydney) Canon Ben Enwuchola Bishop John Broadhurst (Fulham) Bishop John Hind (Chichester) Bishop Michael Nazir Ali (Rochester) Rev Vaughan Roberts (Oxford) Canon Vinay Samual (India) Wallace Benn ...as well as messages from the Archbishops of Ugand, Rwanda and Kenya. You will have to make up your own mind whether this group is diverse or not.  
 Posted by: Fern  Tuesday 23 June 2009 - 01:39pm
nersen, no doubt ordained women will attend the FCA meeting but it's unwise to infer this implies either support from the women or welcome from the prime-movers of FCA.  Members of Reform are deemed to support the Danvers Statement which holds that it's unbiblical for women to be in leadership; it's reasonable to suppose that ordained women would not feature in the ideal world of Bishop Benn and Rev Paul Perkin.  Peter Jensen, one of THE key players in GAFCON is vehemently oppsed to women's ordination as are many of the other big names associated with the GAFCON/FCA movement.  The only exception that I know of is Henry Orombi of Uganda whose church both ordains women and supports their advancement to the episcopate.  I'd suggest that the good Archbishop is tolerated because he's demed to be orthodox on homosexuality.  Should the gay issue ever be resolved, I've no doubt he will find himself the next target. 
 Posted by: Dave  Tuesday 23 June 2009 - 12:27pm
As Fulcrum represents open evangelicalism, it should be open to this new movement within the church. FCA represents Anglo catholic and charismatic voices as well as conservative evangelicals. It's support base seems to be far wider than the hyper-conservative Reform types which Fulcrum has shunned in the past. The brochure for the meeting lists Caroline Cox as a speaker so the claim that there is a ban on woman speakers is untrue. I also notice on the list J I Packer, Stuart Townsend and others i would have thought were beyond reproach. Paul Perkins has said: The fellowship is just that, a spiritual movement of brothers and sisters across the nation and the world. It is not a separatist party, nor is it an organisation, but a spiritual fellowship issuing from a concern for truth and unity. It is a renewal of our confessing Anglican roots and convictions, and will be forward-looking in gospel mission locally, and in solidarity globally with Anglicans throughout the world, especially those suffering through poverty or discrimination I think that the truly open approach is to have the charity to put aside our reservations for one day and support this event. The "open cold shoulder" ( that must be an oxymoron) is a self-fulfilling prophesy that the movement will become narrow and divisive. David
 Posted by: Tim Goodbody  Tuesday 23 June 2009 - 09:36am
As for "Why now?", surely I'm not the only person to notice that whatever ACNA does, FCA does a few days later ...
 Posted by: Soapy Sam  Tuesday 23 June 2009 - 01:19am
Thanks.  Now understood.
 Posted by: James  Monday 22 June 2009 - 05:18pm
Soapy Sam said: "I'm bewildered by James's post.  About which of his personal readings is he in earnest?  Or is this a kind of John Fowles deal with alternate endings?" I'm sorry if my post was less than clear. The first list was my personal take on a set of answers to Pete's four questions in relation to Fulcrum (in response to nersen's point that Pete's same questions could have been asked of Fulcrum). The second list was my personal take on how the same set of questions might be answered in relation to FCA. Nersen said: I feel you are painting FCA as more narrow than it is .... when ordained women, anglocatholics, charismatics and conservatives   -   even some open evangelicals will be at the launch!  This diversity is a reason for hope. I will be very glad for you to be proved right about this, nersen. It would be good to see this diversity reflected in the platform as well as the attenders, including those committed to working within the C of E as it is as well as those who in different ways are seeking special provision for their tradition, and for the ordained women you mention (I have no idea who is attending) to include a good number of incumbents.  
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Monday 22 June 2009 - 04:41pm
Simon.... I think the fact that GAFCON attracted so many different types of Anglican, and the All Souls meeting last year did so too, shows that it is not just Reform involved and forcing their view but a genuinely diverse group of evangelical and anglocatholic Anglicans. Fulcrum fits very well with this group if we talk about issues which cause division and taking a biblical stance in the AC...... what is "strange" is Fulcrum's absence, really, as it is possible to understand why liberals are not interested, but why have Fulcrum leaders not got good working relations with FCA leaders?  (the same question can be asked of them, of course...)   The issue is not the ABC or the right way to do things in the institution....the issue is the authority of scripture and I would hope Fulcrum and FCA leaders could unite on that basis.
 Posted by: Simon Cawdell  Monday 22 June 2009 - 04:22pm
David, The issue runs even deeper, which makes it very strange that CPAS is sending out emails encouraging attendance. The chief movers in this are Wally Benn, who is the advisor to the FCA primates group, and Paul Perkin who is the co-ordinator of FCA in the UK. Both are closely associated with Reform, and the group seems to have at its core a significant membership for whom the issue of women in leadership is an anathema. This makes the CPAS email even more strange, given its commitment to encouraging women in precisely this way.
 Posted by: DavidR  Monday 22 June 2009 - 03:54pm
I have been trying to find out details of the program for the day. The Anglican Mainstream web site lists only male speakers for the central launch and regional lead ups. Something wearyingly familiar about this procession of men on the platform at such events. And given the constuencies they represent there is very little hope that this will be an open and inclusive discussion of the issues. Once again there is so little impression they (and who are they?) are listening and every impression given that 'we' (and who are the 'we'?) are being 'told' by people who know better.  
 Posted by: Soapy Sam  Monday 22 June 2009 - 03:06pm
I'm bewildered by James's post.  About which of his personal readings is he in earnest?  Or is this a kind of John Fowles deal with alternate endings?
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Monday 22 June 2009 - 02:42pm
Thanks for your reply, James..... but I feel you are painting FCA as more narrow than it is .... when ordained women, anglocatholics, charismatics and conservatives   -   even some open evangelicals will be at the launch!  This diversity is a reason for hope. The most hopeful thing re our AC evangelical  splits in the last few months was Stephen Noll (of GAFCON) becoming positive on the Ridley Draft and Graham Kings enthusiasm for that change...... sadly, ACC political moves by those who want no covenant have scuppered, for now, that hopefuness...... but if Fulcrum people (not any poster but the leadership) are happy with the Ridley Draft and if Noll is right that it is pretty close to the Jerusalem Declaration,  then FCA and Fulcrum are not enemies but should be friends.   The FCA is not talking of splitting from the CofE and GAFCON is not talking of leaving the AC. If Noll was right that GAFCON had reason to welcome the Ridley Draft and if Fulcrum is for that draft of a proposed covenant, I do not see any biblical reason for the Fulcrum and FCA leadership not to be friends and work together..... maybe even encouraging each other as they seek to serve Christ in the CofE.  But please do not imagine the FCA is a few people from Reform or AM..... it is much broader and bigger than that...... and it is not saying anything very different to Fulcrum in essence re the revisionist push in the AC  i.e.  both are ultimately for a high view of scripture in the AC.   There is a lot of common ground if we talk about the core biblical issues (rather than the institution).....  I am hoping that the Noll/Kings hopefulness will spread to many more people and "open" and "conservative" and "charismatic" evangelicals will start focussing on what really matters   (not institutional politics but the unity which is possible when we share a common view of scripture i.e. unity in the gospel)
 Posted by: James  Monday 22 June 2009 - 01:16pm
You are right, nersen, they could have been asked, and IMHO the answers were very plain. Fulcrum arose in response to a rather negative stance in Anglican Evangelicalism/Evangelical Anglicanism which appeared to want to separate itself from the structures of the Church of England - one particular instance of which was a negative reaction to the appointment of Rowan Williams as ABC. By contrast Fulcrum wanted to assert that there was a place for a mainstream evangelicalism which is committed to living and working within the structures of the CofE, and to playing by the rules within those structures. It was a place where (amongst other issues) the full ministry of women within the CofE was affirmed and valued, and stood for an evangelical voice within the CofE and within CEEC which spoke with a different accent from Reform and the Church Society. In particular, Fulcrum saw itself renewing the evangelical commitment of NEAC 1967 to working with and within the structures of the Church of England In answer to Pete's four questions, my personal reading is: 1. Why then? Because of the controversy over the balance of speakers at NEAC 4, and the attitude shown towards the ABC 2. what for? To affirm the existence of an evangelical Anglican voice committed to working within the CofE 3. where are they in relation to the Anglican Communion? Within the CofE 4. what is their presence in England meant to signify in relation to the CofE? That being evangelical does not automatically imply an apparent tendency to regard the structures of the CofE with suspicion, questioning the role of women as leaders of local churches or as bishops, or believing oneself to be marginalised within the CofE. I find it hard to see FCA as anything other than a creation of GAFCON so in answer to Pete's four questions, my personal reading is: 1. Why now? Because of the ordinary time scale of working out some English (?UK) expression of GAFCON ("We look forward to the enlargement of the Council and entreat the [GAFCON] Primates to organise and expand the fellowship of confessing Anglicans.") 2. what for? To give voice to the declared aims of GAFCON within the CofE 3. where are they in relation to the Anglican Communion? Semi-within the CofE, but "not accept[ing] that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury" and looking to "the Primates Council to authenticate and recognise [whether the CofE is one of the] confessing Anglican jurisdictions 4. what is their presence in England meant to signify in relation to the CofE? I truly don't know what answer can be given to this question
 Posted by: Deleted user 1222  Monday 22 June 2009 - 01:04pm
I have myself said that these indabas are not indabas as they have operated in Africa, which are large, inclusive gatherings that thrash out issues from every angle until a decision is made in which all have had ownership. But this is a red herring as to why the FCA wish to recruit in England, indeed in the British Isles. The FCA is an attempt of 'under new management' and will, as it sees fit, bypass ordinary structures through its own, and its own leadership has been shown to be shadowy and preparatory prior to so called public structures of its own. The Church of England is more than a select group of more extreme Evangelicals and tag-on to FCA Anglo-Catholics. Further than this, if the Church of England decides to ordain women bishops these particular Anglo-Catholics (not all Anglo-Catholics) tell us that they would have to leave, so if they tag on to FCA then they will have left and be agitating from the outside. However, there is no long term future for Anglo-Catholics in the FCA. The FCA is clearly Protestant based - the principle of believing fellowship - and these types of Anglo-Catholic will presumably have a river to cross. The Church of England is run according to threefold ministry with a set of creeds and nods towards its historical formularies. It isn't also run according to a self-selecting group that intends to legitimise some bishops, dioceses and some churches, and intend to delegitimise other bishops, dioceses and churches and provide alternative oversight (far more 'trotskyite' an activity than any pressure group might be). Nor is the Church of England run by an Anglican Communion - it contributes to that loose body that comes together, but it is its own entity. A group called the Fellowship of Confessing Churches, which is FCA by another name, is organising precisely on a divisive basis regarding the Church of Scotland, which has perfectly functioning and legitimate presbyterian structures for its decisions and maintains loyalty to creeds and its documents. Again, it wants to divide and separate according to its views of legitimacy. The only thing to do with the FCA is to squash it, otherwise it will be a suction for frustration and will eventually become a parallel body that is divisive given all parts of the Church of England that will never have anything to do with it, compared with parts in it, and more moderate evangelical parts compromised by it.
 Posted by: Soapy Sam  Monday 22 June 2009 - 08:59am
I suppose Pete Broadbent's question 4. what is their presence in England meant to signify in relation to the CofE? is intended to imply that the issues which the FCA was created to address don't exist in the Church of England.  So how could anyone possibly think an English FCA was necessary or advisable? If no one shows up for the London launch, no doubt this line of thought will be vindicated. 
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Monday 22 June 2009 - 07:33am
All of +Pete's questions could have been asked of Fulcrum when it was started.....and they are fair questions for the FCA, of course. Why now?  I guess, because the "instruments of Communion" have not dealt decisively with issues resulting from the tearing of the Communion in 2003 and years have gone by with divisions increasing as a result..... Faux indabas (real Zulu ones are not devices for no decisions and endless chat.....Zulus are certainly decisive people!) are all that came from Lambeth 08..... now the ACC has kicked the covenant idea into the long grass (because a few in the AC will never sign one, regardless of the fact that most provinces can sign and even GAFCON was warming up to it.) and we have a TECUSA person (Rev Weeks) giving $1.5m to fund more "listening".... with no strings attached, we are assured.....    Why now for the FCA?   Because the alternative for evangelicals (the insider strategy based on loyalty to the ABC) is giving "an inch at a time" to revisionists....... is it not? Alternatively, what is there for the Fulcrum leadership to object to in the FCA?  Seems to me that a similar view of scripture and commitment to the AC is held in common.    They are not calling for a split in the CofE. They are uniting conservative, charismatic and anglocatholic in a remarkable way.   They are  people who would have no problem with the Ridley Draft of the covenant.....  what is there to oppose?  Any great theological difference to justify being against FCA?   
 Posted by: Pete Broadbent  Saturday 20 June 2009 - 09:38pm
There's a whole threadsworth of discussion, too. http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=013201;p=1#000036 I guess the salient questions about FCA in the UK are: 1. why now? 2. what for? 3. where are they in relation to the Anglican Communion? 4. what is their presence in England meant to signify in relation to the CofE?  
 Posted by: Simon Morden  Friday 19 June 2009 - 03:53pm
Just posted on Ship of Fools: "I have just received and email from John Dunnett, General Director of CPAS, encouraging me to sign up for the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans."
 Posted by: John Watson  Thursday 21 May 2009 - 09:44am
Thanks for the video link Graham - I too found it illuminating: DEFs (Diocesan Evangelical Fellowships) will need to be 'rejigged' or 'renewed', and as the current CEEC council members are largely drawn from exisiting DEFs I wonder what he means by that - and also what the implications for the CEEC are in the light of those organisations who feel they cannot sign the Jerusalem Declaration. That the FCA - though attractively put as 'orthodox' and made up from many traditions - is theologically driven by evangelicals. that 'we' have had enough of listening - 'couragous leaders' take decisive action. I feel often it is couragous to listen and check what you think rather than assume and move on regardless.
 Posted by: Graham Kings  Thursday 21 May 2009 - 07:54am
Thanks, Pluralist. I found the videos illuminating in terms of: the low key style of presentation the choice of the apocalyptic book of Jude (I remember NEAC 2003 in Blackpool majored on 2 Peter) the deep sadness about the resignation of Michael Nazir-Ali the answer to the question about Canterbury in terms of loyalty to the current 'person' rather than to the historic and living links to that 'office' of foundational mission the encouragement of people to read an article on 'border crossings' written against the position of Tom Wright and the Windsor Report - ie Wallace Benn (and John Ellison, in the audience, who mentioned the article) is still speaking out against one of the three morotoria backed by The Windsor Report, the Primates' Communiques (from Dromantine, Dar es Salaam, and Alexandria), and the ACC Communiques (from Nottingham and Jamaica) the announcement - has it been announced before? - that a trustee and council member of Reform is the Chairman of the Advisory Group of the FCA Primates' Council In sum, I think, it was illuminating of the 'Federal Conservative' position. What do others think?
 Posted by: Deleted user 1222  Wednesday 20 May 2009 - 05:41pm
Writing 'very illuminating' is like writing 'velly intellesting'. In what way is it very illuminating?
 Posted by: Graham Kings  Wednesday 20 May 2009 - 08:56am
On 15 May 2009, the day before the Fulcrum Conference, Wallace Benn (Bishop of Lewes, President of CEEC, and Trustee and Council member of Reform) spoke at Christ Church, Virginia Water, about the launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in UK and Ireland on 6 July 2009 in Westminster Central Hall. Stephen Sizer, the vicar of Christ Church, has put on his blog two videos of his addresses, one a Bible Study on the book of Jude, and the other setting the scene and recruiting for the launch. The second video is about 40 minutes long and in two parts: a 17 minute presentation and the rest is a question and answer session.   The latter includes questions about the resignation of Michael Nazir-Ali, whether the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury is significant in Anglicanism, and  (at about 38 minutes) Wallace Benn states that he is the Chairman of the Advisory Group of the FCA Primates' Meeting. Very illuminating...
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Wednesday 29 April 2009 - 07:44am
David.... I seem to remember eyewitness accounts of  thousands of people sitting on a hill listening to Jesus Christ....he even had to make a boy's packed lunch go very far to give them lunch......many times, he attracted many people because of who he was, what he did and what he taught.....and his church grew quite spectacularly after his resurrection.... growth as the gospel is preached is not a bad thing!   Christ taught about a mustard seed growing into a large tree..... he did not teach that decline was the norm and to be expected amongst his followers. You're failing to score a point because I have never argued for size being a sign of blessing.... I just don't take lectures on church growth and outreach from people who have absolutely no record of success or much experience in those areas..... that is not an unreasonable position.  If a CofE church is sticking to the authority of scripture and has hundreds of people attending, I really do not see the sense in taking the advice of people who take a lower view of scripture and do not have hundreds of people attending....not sure what you object to in this....
 Posted by: DavidR  Tuesday 28 April 2009 - 10:48pm
Nersen You claim  (and not for the first time) -  'I can see, every Sunday and midweek, hundreds of people  (all ages and types) in church and very many new people joining' .... Where is this wonderful church going-land Nersen - because it ain't the UK you're describing. you also claim  .... 'I am not interested in following the ideas of people who fail to interest many in the wider population' - well how do you explain your interest in Jesus then?  - hardly rational on that evidence surely.
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Tuesday 28 April 2009 - 05:06pm
Adrian -  I can see, every Sunday and midweek, hundreds of people  (all ages and types) in church and very many new people joining over the years......   perhaps you think you are being much more effective in reaching people and can teach us a lot re how to "communicate" but  I very much doubt that adopting pluralistic ideas and diminishing the authority of scripture in church will lead to great growth......  because the last century  shows us that it has not in the CofE and it has not in TECUSA........   Because I do care about communicating with people, especially those who do not go to church, I am not interested in following the ideas of people who fail to interest many in the wider population..... this is rational, I believe.
 Posted by: Deleted user 1222  Tuesday 28 April 2009 - 01:55pm
It matters being out of step with society if you want to communicate. It is to do with the sociology of knowledge and what are called plausibility structures. It is about the way intellectual knowledge that is this worldly produces, over time, a shift in ordinary, practical knowledge, also this worldly. In so far as people within the religious sphere continue with an other worldly view (if penetrating this one, but remains other worldly in causalities) then they end up throwing a switch between religious talk and ordinary talk. It isn't just evangelical religion that grows. A few years back there were no Progressive Christianity Network groups in this area of Lincolnshire. One started meeting in Lincoln. Then it became too big, so another started meeting in Cleethorpes. If it gets too big, because of where some of them come from, there could be a meeting in Barton. Or some years back there was no Unitarian presence in Harrogate. Now there is a fellowship in that town. The formal trajectory for Unitarianism is decline, and yet places can pop up as if from nowhere, or the tiniest group suddenly turn around. There are a whole variety of groups that meet along this perspective. Two years ago I gave a talk on what prevents liberal groups getting together. But these groups come and go; what makes them meet is the frustration with Christianity and other religion that talks a foreign dogmatic language, and they organise to do things a little differently. But because they are not obsessed with numbers they tend to be more transitional and less quick to expand than others might be, and the individuals either hang on inside formal churches or come to a point of giving them up. Now Nersen would want to just let these people go, or inject them with evangelical-speak (as if), but not to understand this movement, as a movement of loss and then self-organising, is to misunderstand one of the trends in present day Christianity and the decline of Christianity as any explanatory force for the nature of the world.
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Tuesday 28 April 2009 - 08:53am
David.... when a pluralist suggests it matters that we are out of step with society, I think it is fair to point out that if you look at the CofE today, it is those churches which are out of step with society which attract more British people (young and old) and those which have have moved more in line with society are struggling to attract people. I am not arguing that large churches are necessarily a sign of blessing but I am arguing that the "liberal" experiment has resulted in shrinking churches in the UK and US.... therefore, I do not believe we should pay much attention to those who suggest we should relax our commitment to the authority of scripture ....if we are concerned with mission, changing our message to conform with society is not going to work, as proved by the "liberals" in England and elsewhere. Look at the US...since 2003, TECUSA has  not attracted millions of people because of its self-proclaimed "prophetic" actions... in fact, in a country with 5x the population, it gets fewer people on a Sunday than the CofE.... many people go to church in the US but not to the "liberal" TECUSA..... As for growth and large nos, someone once said that we should look at a mustard seed and think about what a large tree grows from it...... we were not taught that the gospel produces irrelevance and decline and the evidence, even in England today, is that the gospel produces growth  - in large and small churches.  
 Posted by: DavidR  Monday 27 April 2009 - 08:26pm
Nersen    - your tendency to mock those positions you disagree with (Christian or otherwise) for their relatively small size is deeply unattractive and unsupported by the gospel. You appear to believe that if a church/group is 'right' it will be automatically popular and 'big'.  Where do you get that from? This is very close to prosperity gospel logic. What do you say to churches in many parts of the world (or in this country) that are small, faithful but struggling and have few resources to build with? Does God is not blessing and sustaining them as much as HTB - or perhaps more? Does the NT anywhere suggest that the size of a church is a sign of its blessing, faithfulness or 'soundness'?  And didn't Jesus say the way is narrow and those who find it are few?    
 Posted by: Deleted user 1222  Monday 27 April 2009 - 01:31pm
What are you on about, Nersen? By the best view, under 10% of the population attend churches, and not all of these are evangelicals. This is hardly evidence that evangelical religion is this attraction you constantly state. It attracts a minority of the young in transition in their lives, and is something of a transition of religion itself - a number of evangelicals go on with study and loosen up their dogmas, simply because they are unsupported by such study as seen in seminaries and universities, and there is a high wastage rate too by those who leave. I've tracked this before in detailed situations: an evangelical Anglican church of a group of young people almost all of whom are no longer involved, the same in a Methodist church I also studied. It simply no longer serves the social connections, and as they leave is gone like a puff of smoke. What young people do is 'handle' evangelical religion expressed week after week by leaders, and then when the social connections move on they do and drop what they had to handle - it usually leaves some sort of residue but that's all.
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Monday 27 April 2009 - 07:39am
Adrian -  you should know by now that evangelicals do not take their theological lead from society....this is because of the view that Jesus was not just one of many good teachers in history...we are not looking for the approval of society....yet many young and old British people are in church every week, I notice.   Dropping our convictions is not attractive...given so few people from wider society flock to "inclusive" TEC and unitarian services  - you should worry about that "social exclusion" more
 Posted by: Deleted user 1222  Sunday 26 April 2009 - 05:11pm
So as society moves to be more inclusive of people of difference, to extend social toleration, and an active view (not just a passive view of toleration), the Evangelical Alliance moves towards being more socially sectarian. It can't have evangelical Christian religion without being socially marginal?
 Posted by: Anonymous  Wednesday 22 April 2009 - 06:52pm
I'm very much in agreement with what Soapy Sam is saying and not just because he is an old mate of mine from Uni days (a man of many aliases then too as I recall!). Isn't it TECand others who are schismatic because they have departed from what the rest of us hold to as Anglicans - approaches to sexuality being symptomatic rather than core to this?  I've signed up to FCA too and am proud to say so.  It stands for a global Anglican identity that has always been key to me having started the Anglican part of my Christian journey in the Church of Nigeria.  However this in no way represents any intention on my part to steer away from the Church of England. What does trouble me is the rather obvious lack of unity amongst Anglican Evangelicals, with two of the groupings busy smiting each other not least at times through this forum!  I thought Evangelical meant you were a person of Good News?  Yet we're increasingly defining ourselves by what we are against!  The movement that does excite me though at the moment is the Evangelical Alliance.  For some years now they have very effectively sought to unite Christian witness and to get the Good News of Jesus in the public arena.  I am really excited about the new General Director, Steve Clifford, a Bradford boy who joins fresh from heading up the fabulous Hope '08 initiative.  I think EA's going to become a rallying point for a load of Evangelical Anglicans such as me who look on with some dismay as our different streams slug it out with each other.  Steve's from the Pioneer grouping of course.  Now in the days when Soapy Sam and I were at Uni, they really were schismatic along with the other 'housechurch' groupings.  There was a time when Gerald Coates and others didn't have a good word to say about those of us in the 'mainstream' denominations.  Happy indeed that those days are over and that we can get on with being Good News together. 
 Posted by: James  Wednesday 22 April 2009 - 02:52pm
Soapy Sam's response to Simon Morden begins with: "1.  The Archbishop of Canterbury is not a pope.  He does not have a better right to 'run the show' than primates of other provinces." In relation to the Anglican Communion as a whole this is true (and IMHO was deliberately reflected vis a vis the Lambeth Conference by the deliberate stepping back from appearing to do what the conference has no power to do). In relation to the CofE (Simon's point was "Since all they disagree with in the CofE is whether Rowan gets to decide who's in the AC, it's a matter of church organisation, not doctrine." my emphasis) Although Archbishop Rowan is still not a pope, he does arguably have a better right to 'run the show' in the CofE. The other points in the post are also true in relation to the wider Anglican Communion but don't really address the argument which Simon is making specifically in relation to the Church of England (which is, after all, the posted subject of this thread) and why, in relation to the Church of England, FCA can be seen as schismatic - for all their protests to the contrary.
 Posted by: Ken Sawyer  Wednesday 22 April 2009 - 09:11am
So I have discovered that Soapy Sam's actual name is Paul McKecknie and that he is Associate Professor of Ancient History at Macquarie University, in Sydney, Australia. I'm still puzzled as to why he does not post with a real name - as most do.
 Posted by: Soapy Sam  Wednesday 22 April 2009 - 01:07am
My real name is no secret, and can be ascertained by clicking on the link to my past messages. I think Simon Morden's latest post allows progress.  At any rate, while not thinking his dilemma fairly expressed, I'm prepared to agree that FCA is (in Simon Morden's terms) 'at odds with the ABofC over who runs the show.' And yet the defect (as I see it) in fairness of expression is important: 1.  The Archbishop of Canterbury is not a pope.  He does not have a better right to 'run the show' than primates of other provinces. 2.  FCA is not unique in protesting against the way the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth conference 'run the show' (if that's what they think they are doing--I see little value in that phrase:  indaba groups and avoidance of voting, in particular, demonstrate that Lambeth 2008 did not intend, and because of Rowan Williams' method of agenda-setting retreated from, actual decision-making ['running the show']). 3.  TEC is a clear example, where attempts by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth conference to 'run the show' (I echo the phrase reluctantly) have been rebuffed.  Ecclesiologically, I don't question that TEC has the right to rebuff these attempts:  it's the Americans' church, and foreigners don't have any authority over it. I'd better avoid ambiguity by adding that I myself am against ordaining active homosexuals as clergy, and against blessing gay unions:  the Americans have the right to make their decisions, but I don't think they have decided wisely.  While we're doing full disclosure, I'm an FCA member. 4.  Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander:  if TEC may protest and not do whatever the Archbishop of Canterbury wishes, so may others. 5.  A protest, as I said before, does not make a schism.  We don't have a pope, for good reasons;  and when a significant number of bishops protest by not accepting invitations to the Archbishop of Canterbury's conference, it would be a good idea if he and some others began listening better to what they are protesting about.
 Posted by: Simon Morden  Tuesday 21 April 2009 - 02:19pm
Soapy Sam (not a real name, I'm guessing) - no retreat at all. Either the FCA rejects the creeds and doctrines of Anglicanism, or it's at odds with the ABofC over who runs the show. Either a split due to doctrinal differences, or a schism over ecclesiology. If the FCA say they accept the same creeds and doctrines as the CofE, it has to be the ecclesiology. But they also say they're not trying to split the church, it has to be doctrine. So which is it? The Duck test (not what they say, but what they do) is the only fair way to sort it out. Most commentators, neutral or otherwise, see this as schism. As for the GAFCON primates - it seems to me they now owe their allegience to GAFCON and the FCA, not the wider Anglican communion. Nersen - what differences in doctrine exist between the CofE and the FCA?
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Tuesday 21 April 2009 - 07:27am
It is obviously misleading to try and define schism to  mean any split..... convenient politically for a liberal minority trying to keep over-representation in the AC, but misleading.  From the OT to the NT, we are never taught to accomodate false teaching.....obviously, it is sometimes right to exclude it. Elijah was not too tolerant...... and someone else was quite hard on the Pharisees and teachers of the law when they were clearly out of line with the spirit and word of scripture.    1 Cor 5-6 and other passages are very clear that sometimes we need to act against false teaching in the church..  We were not told that when we find wolves dressed as sheep we must be deeply respectful of their false teaching, give them leadership positions, house and pay them and allow  them to spend years letting their contradictory ideas corrupt the church.  The ABC may be more worried about GAFCON than those who try to pretend it does not really matter..... especially  given his Lambeth conference did not have the bishops of more than half of the AC but (tragically) had a 1/4 bishops present from tiny, shrinking TECUSA (you know, the oh so relevant and modern Anglicanism that attracts 0.26% of Americans on a Sunday....in total, fewer people than even the CofE manages in a country with a fifth of the population -  a pitiful result for Lambeth.)   But, I notice the ABC has not taken any negative stance towards the Primates and bishops involved with GAFCON ..... they were all invited to Lambeth and are still at the table   -   but post GAFCON, the ABC knows they ain't bluffing when they say that they will not accept teaching which condones anything incompatible with scripture in the AC and trying to accomodate it will have real consequences..... a la 1 Cor 5-6
 Posted by: Soapy Sam  Tuesday 21 April 2009 - 05:38am
Simon Morden retreats from either/or to the duck test.  If that's good enough for him, it's hard to argue. I don't think he has understood that the people whom he calls 'GAFCON Primates' are bishops who are primates of Anglican provinces.  Therefore when he asks 'if GAFCON isn't a church, why does it need Primates?' he makes no sense, and seems to have missed the point that these are bishops who were primates already, went to a certain conference (OK, not the one Simon Morden likes), and signed a declaration which encapsulates normal historic Anglicanism.  That was a protest all right--but not every protest is a schism.
 Posted by: David Palmer  Tuesday 21 April 2009 - 12:57am
  Print false false false EN-AU X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} As an outsider looking in why doesn't the ABC or whoever are the powers that be in the Anglican Communion accept the reality of the existence of another significant grouping of Anglicans in NA and so welcome them. With all of us being social Darwinians at heart, the survival of the fittest will in time sort out which Anglican Church survives in NA.   If you were prepared to go down this route, Gafcon/FCA would quietly melt away having lost their raison d'etre. After all, whether liberal or conservative, dressers up, or dressers down, black or white, you all seem to want to remain in this body called the Anglican Communion.  
 Posted by: Simon Morden  Monday 20 April 2009 - 04:20pm
Well, now. Where to begin? The first thing that needs to be acknowledged is that the FCA is indivisible from GAFCON: its founding is part of the Jerusalem Declaration and in turn it has adopted the JD as a 'rule'. As a consequence of that, it acknowledges the Primates' Council's power to organise and expand the FCA, and to recognise alternative or overlapping jurisdictions. So we now arrive at the 'GAFCON Primates' (and it begs the question that if GAFCON isn't a church, why does it need Primates?) recognising ACNA - something that the wider AC has not and will not do. They are in open opposition to the existing structures of the AC. On one hand, the FCA say that they hold to the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, and state repeatedly they are not breaking away from the Anglican Communion. On the other, they recognise a parallel structure in North America that no one else does. I can understand (though not necessarily agree with) the chain of thought that leads to this. I can understand why CofE clergy and lay people would want to encourage ACNA. I can understand why FCA membership might be desirable to emphasise this. However, we go back to the first point on the list. The FCA is inextricably entwined with the meaning and process of GAFCON, which has set itself up with its own Primates' Council which has the power to recognise alternative or overlapping jurisdictions. FiF and Reform would like an overlapping jurisdiction, free from women and gays, but they have no power save that of persuasion to get it, and both are (at least on paper) committed to the CofE. With the FCA, an alternative structure can be both built and recognised. In part, I agree that the aims of GAFCON and the FCA are not schismatic, in the same way that Cromwell and the Parliamentarians were not schismatic. They didn't want a seperate England with different rules to that of Royalist England. They wanted all of England to be under their rule, and didn't rest until the Royalists capitulated and Charles I was executed. Fortunately, the FCA don't have access to cannon (only canons), and unless Wycliffe Hall starts a course in basic musketry, we're not likely to have our churches forcibly seized by the new puritans. So the only thing left to them is schism. Since all they disagree with in the CofE is whether Rowan gets to decide who's in the AC, it's a matter of church organisation, not doctrine. That puts it firmly in the schismatic camp. I could also invoke the ghost of Militant Tendency and make another analogy, but all that's left to do is apply the Duck Test. It waddles and quacks and dabbles. Paul Handley of the Church Times/Guardian isn't fooled, either, and he was the only reporter at the recent GAFCON press conference.  
 Posted by: Deleted user 1222  Monday 20 April 2009 - 12:33pm
It perceives itself to be a majority of the Communion (in a minority of places). FCA thus is to support a majority of the Communion, presumably then not support a minority of the Communion. Well, we'll see, because Anglicanism isn't organised according to minorities or majorities, but by Churches. The setting up of the FCA is another view - a believers' fellowship view - of Communion, and setting up a structure in the UK is effectively an attempt to rewrite the basis of Communion and to set up a schismatic structure. And I'm not here referring to views like my own being outside the perceived majority, but those views that are surely within the breadth of the C of E and other Anglican Churches for which the FCA is an attempted imposition of a particular point of view via structures to alter the institution by parallel and then by takeover.
 Posted by: Soapy Sam  Monday 20 April 2009 - 12:57am
Simon Morden's either/or is misleading.  Wholly possible to join a society without intending either doctrinal change or schism.  Take the Church Society, or Forward in Faith.  Neither of them exists for the purpose of setting up a new church.  Why should FCA?
 Posted by: Neil  Sunday 19 April 2009 - 10:30pm
Normal 0 Simon, just wondering what you make of this from the CEN 9th April:   “The event chairman, the Rev Paul Perkin, emphasized that “this is not the start of a new Church. Everybody’s determined to cast this as a separatist movement – this is not a separatist movement. We are not seceding, this is not schismatic. It is precisely the opposite of separation, the purpose is unity and mission.  The focus of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is of unity, solidarity and support of the majority of the Anglican Communion.””
 Posted by: Simon Morden  Sunday 19 April 2009 - 12:23am
Nersen - you say "Schism is splitting when there is no great theological difference". If this is the case (modern dictionaries disagree with you, but the OED suggests that Augustine and the Fathers used the term where churches split over ecclesiastical ordering), then consider that the Church of England holds to its historic formularies, the Lambeth resolutions and the Windsor process. Since this is affirmed by ++Williams and the Synod, what possible reason could there be for any member of the CofE, lay or clergy, to associate with the FCA? Either the FCA is in the process of setting up another church within the provinces of Canterbury and York because it rejects the creeds and constitution of Anglicanism - or it is by your own definition, schismatic. Which is it?  
 Posted by: Obadiahslope  Saturday 18 April 2009 - 11:30pm
Graham, Thanks for pointing back to Fulcrum's plan to reshape the Anglican Communion. http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=310 I hope I am not seen as too picky if I point out a couple of flaws in your paper. I appreciate your proposal as an attempt to keep the Anglican Communion together. The first is that in the context of discussing Gafcon there is no mechanism that addresses the main issue that has driven the emergence of this new movement, namely a way for those in the communion who wish it, to remain in fellowship with the conservative anglicans who have left TEC. I hope I am not doing Fulcrum an injustice in asserting that this is an issue which the Fulcrum leadership seems to have no positive ideas about. (This represents Fulcrums origins as a "centre-unity" group to use the language of the Australian Labor Party). By all means stay in relationship with "Covenant communion", but what about the ACNA group? Secondly, your 'six continents' structure amounts to a huge liberal gerrymander. The couple of hundred thousand Anglicans in Australia and South America wil have twice the representation of te 30 or 40 million Anglicans in Africa. Together with the 'official' anglicans in North America there will be a Liberal bloc of three out of six on your primates council, representing a tiny proportion of the whole. Or, for a moment ignore the theological spectrum that the continents represent and think about the racial composition of the communion. Our communion is majority black. Yet your structure seems to me to shore up white priviledge. You have done well to think imaginatively about the future of the anglican Communion. But have another try, please.
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Saturday 18 April 2009 - 07:01pm
Schism is splitting when there is no great theological difference...... otherwise St Paul would have been advocating schism to the Corinthians (1 Cor 5-6)..... we are taught to not give space to false teaching (schism is quite different) As for GAFCON being about an alternative communion.....maybe it is just that majority of th AC saying that it will no longer put up with false teaching increasing its reach in the AC...... since GAFCON attracts about 2/3 of the Anglicans on church on a Sunday, that seems more likely to me.   Not all Anglicans are willing to drop the 39 articles and the authority of the scripture in the AC   (not even to please a pluralist, funnily enough)
 Posted by: Deleted user 1222  Friday 17 April 2009 - 02:31pm
GAFCON, it seems to me, is making two sweeping assertions out of this latest meeting. The GAFCON Primates' Council has the responsibility of recognizing and authenticating orthodox Anglicans especially those who are alienated by their original Provinces. So now they are going to make general judgments about provinces. Secondly there is the meaning of the FCA (and they are using GAFCON/ FCA Primates Council): We are also called to promote the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) in its stand against false teaching and as a rallying point for orthodoxy. It is our aim to ensure that the unity of the Anglican Communion is centered on Biblical teaching rather than mere institutional loyalty. So I see this as the FCA being an alternative basis for Communion, indeed a parallel or alternative Communion. Indeed the FCA will be organised into regional chapters and networks (and thus not far from creating parallel provinces). This is schism by another name, and certainly plans being put into place.    
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Tuesday 7 April 2009 - 07:34am
Duncan - pls try again because your attempt at point scoring below is very weak.... because I did engage with the most important point you made i.e. re hypocrisy  - my answer was that Forward in Faith are not preaching that certain sins are not somehow holy and pleasing to God these days....that is why people like Reform and AM can work with them with integrity.  You assert /allege there is terrible hypocrisy in the FOCA grouping....before making strong allegations, you should think about what evidence you have...and perhaps look in the mirror before throwing such stones?   The key point is that FiF are firmly in line with scripture and tradition in not teaching that their (alleged) sins or any other sins are holy these days and so AM/Reform can work with them with integrity.  If some there are sinning as you say, they should be challenged by their own teaching to repent..... all preachers / teachers should be challenging themselves and repenting where necessary, of course....and the AM/Reform people are not ones to turn blind eyes - that may be more your style?   What is unacceptable to AM/Reform/FiF is the type of teaching which says sin is not sin these days (regardless of scripture) and seeks to justify it as holy and good..... with that kind of false teaching, most Anglicans cannot work.  I think your attack on FOCA is unfair because no sin is being justified by people in that grouping.... perhaps you are annoyed that the FOCA grouping is broader than just Reform?
 Posted by: Peter Carrell  Tuesday 7 April 2009 - 01:38am
One reason for not giving up on TEC being a worthy member church of the Anglican Communion is the responses emerging to the election of Thew Forrester as Bishop of Northern Michigan (the one being characterised as 'Buddhist'). Recently posted is a long explanation from the Bishop of the Diocese of Bethlehem, Paul V. Marshall, as to why he is not giving his consent. Here is an excerpt: "As a Church we are increasingly a laughing-stock. Not because we welcome lesbian and gay people, and carry on social ministries that enact the sacrifice of Christ on a corporate basis, and certainly not because of our latitude and the conversation it engenders. We are a laughing stock because we do not consistently proclaim a solid core, words as simple as "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," yet "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself." Increasingly it seems that the Cross has become foolishness in the Church, and our former hallmark teaching of the Incarnation is seldom heard, and less seldom heard to matter. If our embarrassment is going to end, the voices of bishops as clear, traditional, and powerful evangelists need to be raised in the churches and in the market place. Many bishops find a number of techniques that come from the social sciences useful in their ministries, and have significant investment in Eastern meditation -- their qualification to be bishops, however, is as the chief confessors of the creeds and presidents at the sacraments. They are to be unambiguously ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through them." [http://diobeth.typepad.com/diobeth_newspin/2009/04/on-the-northern-michigan-episcopate.html#more ] I take a great deal of heart from this kind of episcopal speech. I wander what appreciative applause FCA will provide in response? Or will this be ignored?
 Posted by: Graham Kings  Tuesday 7 April 2009 - 12:19am
Thanks, David Palmer. You say, 'I guess a conclusion I can draw from your opposition to Gafcon is that you, just as much as Gafcon, are working toward the breakup of the Anglican Communion.'    God forbid. Fulcrum is not working towards the breakup of the Anglican Communion. On the contrary, we believe that the route of the Anglican Covenant is the only way forward for the Anglican Communion to be reshaped and stay together and not be reduced to a Federation - which may well would look something like the World Alliance of Reformed Churches... It may be worth reading the thread on this subject on Stand Firm. Sarah Hey, an evangelical on the Stand Firm team, has some very interesting comments to make: here, and here, and here, including the following: it will be a HUGE mistake for those wishing to stay within the [Anglican Communion/Church of England] to be a part of the FCA, just as it was a HUGE mistake for the [Anglican Communion] Network to attempt to encompass both those who wished to leave TEC and those who wished to stay and fight. For the strategy and expectations of the Anglican Church in North America, it is worth reading Douglas LeBlanc's article, 'Anglican American Council Official: Canterbury's Recognition Unlikely', The Living Church site, 3 April 2009. It includes the following quotations from a recent speech: “We do not believe that Canterbury will recognize us, at least while the current archbishop is still in office,” said the Rev. J. Philip Ashey, the AAC’s chief operating officer and chaplain, in a brief speech in the suburbs of Richmond, Va... Fr. Ashey compared the A[nglican] A[merican] Council to the Special Forces of the U.S. military.   “Like Special Forces, we go behind the scenes and we blow up things,” he said, adding quickly that what the AAC blows up is principalities and powers.
 Posted by: Celinda  Tuesday 7 April 2009 - 12:03am
Hi L Roberts, I think I'm with the Brethren on the reality of Christ's resurrection as recounted by scripture.
 Posted by: Deleted user 974  Monday 6 April 2009 - 11:29pm
'Personally I would prefer working with Anglo Catholics who actually believe in * the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Christ,' * and yet, and yet, in fact  the line above (between * & *  cannot be found in either Bible nor Creeds. How much subtler in expression are these sources of our Christian heritage ! Some folks are  SO Scriptural and SO traditonal that  they trust neither Scripture nor tradition, and so offer their own formulations of the matter ...    
 Posted by: David Palmer  Monday 6 April 2009 - 09:28pm
Normal 0 false false false EN-AU X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} Normal 0 false false false EN-AU X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} Graham, thank you for your full and considered response. I found it informative, though I believe you may be underplaying the Duncan side and overplaying the other side . You mention leading evangelicals in the Global South Anglican movement not backing Gafcon but surely you don’t deny the big African Churches with the big numbers of church attendees were fully backing Gafcon. And frankly Sydney Diocese is not to be so easily dismissed – it is one of the few church bodies actually recording growth in Australia and amongst Anglican Churches in the West(?).   If I was an Anglican I would definitely look to them as a role model, though for this Presbyterian I find their (prevailing) doctrine of worship questionable.   The point about Gafcon/FCA is that it is happening whether you and Fulcrum like it or not.  I guess a conclusion I can draw from your opposition to Gafcon is that you, just as much as Gafcon, are working toward the breakup of the Anglican Communion.     Personally, I don’t think schism is always wrong. If there is sufficient hurt, sometimes it is better to walk separately, at least for a while. Historically Presbyterians have gone through any number of splits and mergers.   This past weekend we have celebrated the 150th anniversary of the formation of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria following the merger of three separate Presbyterian bodies in 1859. In 1977 a large portion (60-70%) of what, over time had become a quarrelsome Church, splintered off and merged with Methodists and Congregationalists into the Uniting Church. The continuing Presbyterian Church has returned to its confessional heritage and basically got on with being a church in a reasonably peaceful manner.   So, as an outsider looking in there may be a need for a parting of the ways in the Anglican Communion so that less time is spent counter productively fighting in order to allow the different parties to refocus on being church with a greater sense of shared purpose and unity. But then there’s that property issue....   Reading Duncan Swan’s post,   Forward and Faith and Reform types stayed away largely. It was great! Liberal Catholics and Open Evangelicals affirming each others styles and united with passion and commitment.   I’m wondering whether the emphasise is more on the “Open” than “Evangelical” and just how open "Open" might be..   Personally I would prefer working with Anglo Catholics who actually believe in the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Christ, the infallibility and possibly even the inerrancy of sacred Scripture than with liberal Catholics who deny these matters of historical record and the Church’s confessional standards. I agree if they are all homosexuals with live in partners, there is a serious problem, but can this assertion be demonstrated?
 Posted by: duncan swan  Monday 6 April 2009 - 05:53pm
Well I was wondering how long it would take Nersen to reply to my post. Sadly he displays as always a complete inability to engage with the point, the usual obsession with numbers, the tedious slagging off of the Episcopal Church and Lambeth Palace. Also his argument is somewhat, and I think this is the word I am looking for, incoherent. Actually Nersen, I was doing something you seem very keen on, publically rebuking Christians for sin, in this case the sin of hypocrisy. From your post it seems that is OK as long as people uphold 'a high view of the authority of scripture.' AM and FiF is in my view an unprincipled marriage of convenience and evangelicals and other Anglicans should not be afraid to name it as such. I think that is called speaking the truth in love....
 Posted by: liddon  Monday 6 April 2009 - 04:55pm
Soapy Sam is right, unless Nazir Ali already has his ducks in a row.  We'll see.
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Monday 6 April 2009 - 04:28pm
Nothing odd about it, Duncan..... Forward in Faith are not teaching that what the AC has repeatedly called "incompatible with scripture" is somehow good and holy (even if some or all of them are tempted and even fail sometimes  different ways) ....... this makes it quite easy for AM et al to work with them....remember even Reform is made up of Anglicans i.e. people who always knew that the whole church was not exactly like them but want to be part of it.  What is unacceptable to many Anglicans is the fait accompli given by TECUSA since 2003 for the AC to condone behaviour which most of it sees as going against scripture.... that is why various Anglicans, who are not exactly like each other, are united i.e. against false teaching.  (That is why GAFCON was so much bigger than the LamPal bureaucracy hoped and expected....)  "open evangelical" seems to mean many things .... even  people with some very "liberal" views seem to self-identify as "open evangelical"... you may have a lovely time with those people ("closet liberals", still in denial so wanting to call themselves "evangelical")  but are you happy with the official Fulcrum statements and positions?   As a "conservative", I am happy with the official Fulcrum statementsan hope they represent "open evangelcals'" views... because the authority of scipture is not compromised and there is a clear lack of acceptance of any sinful behaviour being legitimised as a result.... a high view of the authority of scripture is what unites the different groups you see in GAFCON / FOCA and that is its strength...... it would be nice for "liberals" to write it off as Reform in the desert or Sydney building an empire or Akinola doing the same.....but it is so big and has nearly all the growing areas in the AC, it really does not care what its critics think IF they criticise ultimately because they do not like the opposition from FOCA to the AC condoning behaviour which is still considered incompatible with scripture by most Anglicans (and many of our respected scholars, even English ones) today.
 Posted by: Deleted user 974  Monday 6 April 2009 - 04:27pm
'Now I hate to let them in on a secret but there are plenty of gay clergy in Forward in Faith, in fact plenty is probably an understatement! Anglo-Catholicism has had its gay sub-culture for many years, either Anglican Mainstream/Reform are wifully naive or are forming a convenient alliance on the 'They may be gay but at least they are nasty to women' basis. Sorry if this seems a little blunt ... ' (Ducan Swan quote). No, not blunt ! -- honest.  I hear you calling Reform to act with real honesty and integrity on this matter. I have been shocked by FiF and other Anglo-Catholics who are predominantly gay and make no bones about it; and yet condemn on-going gay relationships which cannot be hidden for long, while so many of them are,  in fact, sexually active (awful English); and who pass off their own partners where they have one, as being their sacristan / housekeeper/PA etc. I don't blame them for takings teps to proect themselves and each other, but I do find preaching the opposite of what you practice is  dissillusioning to me , and has been since my teens. I still don't really get it.   And now, I am really shocked to find Evangelicals buying into this also (Reform). Irrationally, my background has left me expecting more of Evos - despite msyelf !  
 Posted by: duncan swan  Monday 6 April 2009 - 12:29pm
What strikes me as bizarre about this, and has always seemed odd even since Gafcon last summer, is the way in which Foca/Reform/Anglican Mainstream (increasingly difficult to separate) are cosying up to Forward in Faith. A cursory look at their website would make one think Anglican Mainstream object to women bishops, if not women's ordination full stop. More to the point Anglican Mainstream were founded concerning the issue of homosexuality. Now I hate to let them in on a secret but there are plenty of gay clergy in Forward in Faith, in fact plenty is probably an understatement! Anglo-Catholicism has had its gay sub-culture for many years, either Anglican Mainstream/Reform are wifully naive or are forming a convenient alliance on the 'They may be gay but at least they are nasty to women' basis. Sorry if this seems a little blunt, but I return to a theme that I have raised on these pages before, that evangelicals in the Church of England are going to be faced with a choice. Reform style Sydney conservatism with no women in leadership in FOCA, or the joyful prospect of joining with the rest of us messy Anglicans in the church of England and its misson to our country. I am reminded of our area clergy conference a couple of years ago. Forward and Faith and Reform types stayed away largely. It was great! Liberal Catholics and Open Evangelicals affirming each others styles and united with passion and commitment.
 Posted by: nersenpaul  Monday 6 April 2009 - 08:08am
While I agree with the statement that GAFCON has no monopoly on wisdom, the same applies to Fulcrum and the insider strategy of the "Communion Partners".... I am sure the Fulcrum leadership will agree! What matters is that both sets of evangelicals are being obedient to scripture in dealing with the false teaching issues in the AC..... we do not have to make up strategies, the bible has lots to say re how to deal with false teaching in the church.  Perhaps both stances are valid and we should focus on the what we do believe as evangelcals..... i.e. we can be united in having a high view of scritpure and not accepting behaviour which is incompatible with scripture.  Perhaps we can try to support each other rather than opposing each other?  Or do "open" and "conservative" hate each other so much that they cannot build each other up? Results matter......eg if post GC09, TECUSA has a "buddhist bishop" and has got rid of BO33 (which would be more honest as it is already not respected on the ground), what do the Communion Partners and Fulcrum and others who support the "insider strategy" do then?  Wait another decade? Obviously, I do not support an "insider strategy".... after more than a decade of listening and being patient and the answer never being accepted that the majority of the Communion is not persuaded that what is incompatible with scripture is good and holy but certain groups doing what they like regardless of AC positions, I think we should learn from St Paul eg what he taught the Corinthians in 1Cor5-6  (interestingly, he touches on morality and law suits) and also in how he dealt with his senior apostle Peter in Galatians 2......   no "two integrities" - that would be a lie. Having said that, I value the work of Anglican Mainstream and completely understand why they think it is right to have a clear break with the most malignant false teaching in the AC..... but I also value the work of Fulcrum and think the statements of the leadership have been an excellent witness, showing that people who are not rabid "conservatives" (and people who are respected scholars) also cannot accept the determined rejection of the authority of sciprture in the AC.  I support both AM and Fulcrum..... both +Duncan and +Lawrence.  Some "open" evangelical leaders may have wanted TECUSA et al to repent or walk away from the AC - rather than to confront the false teaching in the AC and exclude it. don't think that is what the bible teaches us re how to deal with false teaching .... but I hope that happens at GC09, it would be easier.   Post GC09, as it becomes clearer and clearer that TEC and its satellites are never really going to repent (although they may try to buy yet more time, with words they redefine to give themselves licence, to stay in the AC as they are so small outside the AC (add up the Sunday attendance of TEC, Canada, Scotland and Wales.... sad irrelevances now in their countries)), I expect Fulcrum and AM, which already agree on the theological issues, to agree on the right "strategy" in the AC ultimately..... because there is agreement on the key theological issues -  that is what really matters..... 
 Posted by: Soapy Sam  Monday 6 April 2009 - 12:41am
James Laz seems to be too quick to assume that Michael Nazir-Ali's resignation is a 'manoeuvre' of some kind.  No doubt bishops do manoeuvre;  but a 'manoeuvre' which begins with giving up all that influence and income would make no sense to most bishops.
 Posted by: James Laz  Sunday 5 April 2009 - 06:39pm
I want to add my support to Graham Kings here. I think that Gafcon has no exclusive rights to wisdom here.  There is far too much stridency and far too much manoeuvring going on.  (What is the Bishop of Rochester up to?) I would urge Evangelicals to shift the emphasis from negative to positive.  What are we in favour of - not just what are we against.  And I would like us to look at the list of things we are supposedly against and ask how many are really salvation issues.   Womens Bishops?  Surely this is a secondary not primary issue.  Too many naive shrill voices have utterly confused the nation - and for what benefit?  Has truth really been served?  I see no benefits, and in many ways our Lord dishonoured. So I support Fulcrum in asking the difficult questions and aiming for a gentler, inclusive approach. It seems to me that Jesus was accessible to everyone.  He did not condone sin, but he did spend a huge amount of time with sinners.  That should be our role model.  People are not going to get bullied or intimidated into the Kingdom.  Its only love that works and Gafcon seem to have left out the love bit in so much of their machinations. And lastly as I have posted before, lets give our Archbishops a bit of this gentler, kinder spirit too.  I for one think they both deserve it.
 Posted by: Graham Kings  Sunday 5 April 2009 - 04:29pm
Thanks, David Palmer. If 'my country, right or wrong' is not a good approach to patriotism, then neither, it seems to me, is 'supporting fellow evangelicals, right or wrong' a good general policy for Fulcrum. It depends on the wisdom of what is being advocated. Fulcrum has questioned the wisdom of GAFCON from the beginning, for various reasons including its being set up - despite some denials - as an alternative to the Lambeth Conference 2008. My Fulcrum newsletter for January 2008, 'Substance and Shadow: Lambeth Conference and GAFCON', provided the background critique for this. Leading evangelicals in the Global South Anglican movement did not back GAFCON, including John Chew, Mouneer Anis, Michael Poon and Joseph Galgalo. There are two general movements for Anglicans in the USA who are conservative on issues of sexuality, not one. 1. Communion Partners - backed by the Anglican Communion Institute and Covenant and Fulcrum - who are staying in The Episcopal Church and continuing to bear witness. There are about 14 conservative dioceses who are staying in The Episcopal Church. 2. Anglican Church in North America - backed by GAFCON/Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and Anglican Mainstream - who have split off from The Episcopal Church to begin a new Church in North America. There are only 4 dioceses who have split off from The Episcopal Church. So it is not at all clear that your claim is correct, when you say that 'beleaguered fellow evangelicals in the American Episcopal Church ... seem overwhelmingly supportive of Gafcon'. Many 'beleaguered fellow evangelicals' support the Communion Partners movement. As Maeve Sherlock says on our Fulcrum card, 'There's more than one way to be an evangelical...' For the strategy and expectations of the Anglican Church in North America, it is worth reading Douglas LeBlanc's article, 'Anglican American Council Official: Canterbury's Recognition Unlikely', The Living Church site, 3 April 2009. It includes the following quotations from a recent speech: “We do not believe that Canterbury will recognize us, at least while the current archbishop is still in office,” said the Rev. J. Philip Ashey, the AAC’s chief operating officer and chaplain, in a brief speech in the suburbs of Richmond, Va... Fr. Ashey compared the A[nglican] A[merican] Council to the Special Forces of the U.S. military.   “Like Special Forces, we go behind the scenes and we blow up things,” he said, adding quickly that what the AAC blows up is principalities and powers.
 Posted by: David Palmer  Sunday 5 April 2009 - 01:59am
I see from some of the material that Graham has posted that you have taken quite a hardline stance against Gafcon, which means that you are taking a hardline stance against fellow evangelicals. I note that your website makes reference to Fulcrum “renewing the evangelical centre”. I am puzzled as to how you could be renewing the evangelical centre while at the same time being so critical of Gafcon which in Australia I know has drawn very solid support from evangelical Anglicans who don’t seem to find it necessary to define themselves as “open” or “conservative” evangelicals as far as I know. As an outsider I am aware that some are charismatic, whilst most are not, in some parts that is support for women clergy and in other parts either no support or restricted support, but no one talks about “renewing the evangelical centre”, or being different sorts of evangelicals. A/B Jensen who I see is named Secretary of this new organisation enjoys tremendous respect not just in evangelical Anglican circles but amongst evagelicals generally in Australia. So what gives? If you are an Anglican Communion why wouldn’t you want to support beleaguered fellow evangelicals in the American Episcopal Church who seem overwhelmingly supportive of Gafcon?
 Posted by: Graham Kings  Saturday 4 April 2009 - 09:38am
The UK and Ireland branch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) will be launched at Westminster Central Hall, London on Monday 6 July 2009. The chair of the event, which is entitled 'Be Faithful!', is Paul Perkin, vicar of St Mark's Battersea Rise. Further information is also available from Christopher Sugden, executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream. Speakers include: Bishops Keith Ackerman, Wallace Benn, John Broadhurst, and Michael Nazir-Ali, Archbishop Peter Jensen, Dr Chik Kaw Tan, Canon Vinay Samuel, Rev Vaughan Roberts. Some background reading may be helpful: For the Fulcrum initial response to the unofficial 'Covenant for the Church of England', drafted by Paul Perkin and Christopher Sugden, and presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury in December 2006, click here. For an article in the Church Times, 10 November 2006, by Rachel Harden, click here. For the Fulcrum Briefing Paper on GAFCON for Parochical Church Councils, click here. For news of the next Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Jamaica, 1-13 May 2009, which will discuss the official Anglican Covenant for the Anglican Communion, click here. For news of the recent meeting of the Anglican Covenant Design Group 30 March - 3 April 2009 in Cambridge, click here.    

Add your comments on the Fulcrum Forum

LATEST
NEWS

Church of England issues briefing on Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill Commons Report and Third Reading Briefing. CofE Website, 19 May 2013
19 May 2013

Government pleads with Labour to save gay marriage bill

Tory rebellion on amendment to grant civil partnerships to heterosexual couples will 'cost ﾣ4bn and take two years' Guardian Online, 19 May 2013
19 May 2013

Archbishop's daughter spearheads drive to teach 'happiness' in churches

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

 

FULCRUM
FORUM

Religion on the media and online posted by Simon Cawdell

  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...

The meaning of kephale in scripture posted by djr

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...

The ABCD of depression, happiness, and wisdom posted by Bowman

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 ...

 

RECENT
ARTICLES

Rowan Williams: the Canterbury Years
by John Martin

John Martin reviews Andrew Goddard's timely memoire of the Archiepiscopate of Rowan Williams

Men and Women in Marriage: Study or Ignore?
by Andrew Goddard

Andrew Goddard offers a positive assessment of the recent FAOC document

The Church of England and the Funeral of Baroness Thatcher
by Jonathan Chaplin

A comment on the most controversial funeral of the century.......