Hi Jody,

I am bemused by your view that the classical view of the atonement (which you call PSA) is a novel idea. If you mean it is novel for you, that is fair enough, and I guess you began a study of such things only in recent years.

The most recent widely respected account of The Cross is John Stott's book, The Cross of Christ, first published in 1986. John Stott himself makes it clear that his work stands on the shoulders of scholars going back across the centuries.

For those of us with grey in our hair, the novel notion is the idea that the classical view of the atonement is "false teaching" !

Peter H

Of course the notion of propitiation as the placating by man of an angry God is unchristian - which is why such an idea has no connection to the truth of God bearing the punishment due to us on Himself in the Person of His Son.

Steve, you have set up a straw man and then knocked him over. You have demonstrated nothing with regard to the Cross

Peter H

Birinus, Pluralist et al,

Perhaps, in the interests of balance, another perspective can be offered.

Fern has set out an extremely critical view of Reform (as is her entitlement) which others are then building on as if Fern has described the reality. The whole thing is then taking on a life of its own, with people attributing to Reform what is no more than one person's perspective on them.

Please remember that Wallace Benn (An English Bishop) is one of the Trustees of Reform. Lets not get too carried away with lurid colours when painting a picture of Reform - for example the notion that the first thing "RVs" do is to break communion with their Bishop is plainly nonsense.

Fern, with respect, over-statement weakens your case rather than strengthening it.

Peter H

Simon,

I have listened to the Synod Debate via the audio links and it was clearly a long and sometimes difficult day.You and others present are to be thanked for the time you devoted to the debate.

What what surprising was the resolution with which the gathering struck down conciliatory amendment after amendment. You, as a gathering, decided that you would concede nothing to those who do not share your conviction. (The Code of Practice currently means nothing because it has no content).

It was not a matter of having to wound one group or another. You decided that the dissenters are wrong.  The clarity and force of that message will not escape the people affected.

Peter H

Kevin,

There are people who, by their beliefs or lifestyle or both, empty any claim to be orthodox Anglicans of its authenticity.  I take it that FoCA will not ignore such facts.

(If I announce a belief in faries at the bottom of the garden as the basis for my Anglicanism, then I would expect FoCA to suggest I re-think my beliefs).

That is not the same as saying that FoCA will or would assume for itself a general authority to declare who is and is not Anglican. 

In terms of Doctrine, FoCA has adopted a set of statements that no Anglican would find problematic. Therefore the issue is the application of Doctine to real life.

Peter H

Jody,

You attribute to GAFCON/FOCA a position they simply do not hold.

There is no question of FOCA claiming that to be Anglican you must be part of FOCA. To then go a step further - as you have done - and attribute to GAFCON/FOCA the extremist claim that to be evangelical you have to be part of FOCA is completely wrong.

(See thread on FOCA and Anglicanism for the actual stated position of GAFCON/FOCA - a clear affirmation of wider Anglicanism and not the slighest suggestion that FOCA now define evangelicalism)

These are difficult times but lets not paint a picture of GAFCON/FOCA that is an invented and alarmist cartoon

Peter H

Pluralist,

Tom Wright has certainly mis-judged the situation, (though I think I reach that conclusion for reasons that differ from yours - see thread on FOCA and the definition of Anglicanism) but lets make sure he is being treated fairly.

He is clearly intending to be partially ironic in his reference to "wicked" bishops who have gone for Jim Packer. For a man of such learning and scholarship it is a surprising lapse of language, but we all stumble from time to time.

This is a difficult time for Tom Wright and whilst I wish he would scale back his assault on GAFCON/FOCA, he remains one of our finest Christian leaders.  

Peter H

Bishop Tom Wright is probably the most influential English figure amongst those who are promoting and promulgating the notion that Peter Jensen et al are intent on usurping the role of the ABC and defining Anglicans as those people who are in fellowship with him  and his colleagues.

This is simply not true.

Peter Jensen's briefing (helpfully available via this site's Newswatch) makes it absolutely clear that he and those amongst whom he stands have no such pretensions.

Peter Jensen states of the Jerusalem Declaration "There is no claim here that we are the Anglican Church. We are Anglican, but we do not claim exclusively that we are the only Anglicans". (The whole briefing is worth hearing, but go to 37 minutes in to find this section)

If Bishop Tom does not wish to be associated with FOCA, Peter Jensen et al will not and, of course, cannot deny his (i.e. Bishop Tom's) Anglicanism.

Peter H

Graham,

Who are "Micky" and "Observing" and what on earth has convinced you that they have something sensible to say about GAFCON ???.

"Observing" introduces the language of War in a manner that leaves me speechless.  This kind of language is bizzare and dangerous and in these difficult days should be treated as toxic nonsense - which is what it is.

If Fulcrum wants to be taken seriously it cannot start "cutting" and "pasting" such internet outbursts and passing them off as perceptive commentary on those who Fulcrum regards with concern 

One of the refreshing aspects of the Gagnon dialogue is that it established that Fulcrum has a genuine interest in maintaining a link with what it tends to refer to as Conservative Evangelicals.

If you now engage in an old-fashioned "Hatchet Job" on GAFCON, on the basis that the ends justify (any) means you will loose that constituency very rapidly 

Peter H

Robert Gagnon has done Fulcrum and the Church a considerable service by engaging in debate in such robust and detailed terms.

The inference that the debate has consisted of Gagnon against "everybody else", with his tone and manner as a limiting factor is frankly absurd.

I have observed his comments with interest and am certain others will be in the same position. (I have not posted extensively because I have not been in a position to give the necessary time).

Pointing the finger and Gagnon and suggesting he has upset everybody else and needs to recognise his isolation is childish and unworthy. Gagnon is an academic and has done neither more nor less than he will be doing every working day of the week with his students. 

We are dealing here with the future of the church and we need real, robust treatment of the issues. Gagnon's fault - if that is the right word - is that he has broken the convention on this forum that allows feeble and shallow thinking to pass as biblical commentary

Peter H 

I have listened to Graham Kings calm and considered response to the Gafcon statement and would recommend it as essential listening.(See Newswatch for link to Premier Radio)

I would take issue with him on a fundamental point he makes,which is "by what authority is all this being done" - Graham, forgive the paraphrase.

Is not the ultimate steward of the Gospel the people of God rather than an inherited ecclesiastical structure ? If these developments are a work of the Holy Spirit, then His Church will respond to them. If men with feet of clay are behind it all, surely it will go nowhere. 

It is incidentally a real tonic to hear a Fulcrum commentary which is entirely devoid of rancour. It is obvious that Graham would be willing to conduct a civil conversation with  Peter Jensen and others if the need arose.

Would that such a calm and mature spirit could be found across this forum

Peter H 

Robert Gagnon has dispensed with the usual concessions which are made to other people's sensibilities. (Personally, I have no idea what kind of man he is, nor frankly does it matter).

People need to rise to the level of events. What is now happening is of immense and eternal significance to countless number of people. If Gagnon ruffles your feathers, for goodness sake take it in your stride. 

His aim,obviously, is to bear witness to the Truth. He must be judged on the extent to which he discharges that aim. 

Peter H