13 forum messages posted by
Andy Gubbins

Rowan excels in a marvellous example of applying Christian Faith, even Lenten discipline, to our contemporary global challenges, leading to a well-worked exposition of christian ethics as a confident witness in turbulent times. Its worth ploughing through the weighty script, or reading the Guardian summary version. He never takes his eye off the crying needs, putting in proportion all the commercial and political smoke-screens around.  I never knew Adam Smith etc might still be so relevant either.  I wonder what consensus might be developing, commercially and politically, nationally and globally.  Have we the moral, political will to rebuild for the shared longterm interests of rich and poor, North and South alike?  Will be more interesting to watch now after Rowans lecture.  

Nersen: 'the J John business'; have I missed something? I'm puzzled.

All Welcome to ‘LIFE AFTER LAMBETH’

Saturday 4th October 2008, 10.00 am – 4.00 pm
@ St George’s Church Centre, Leeds, W.Yorks. 
Day Conference for all Anglican Evangelicals in North-Eastern Dioceses to take stock of the position of evangelicals in the Church of England.

with
Right Revd John Ellison (former Bishop of Paraguay, Gafcon attendee 
Revd Andrew Goddard (Anvil; Fulcrum leadership)
chaired by Right Revd Martin Wallace, Bishop of Selby
hosted by York with Ripon & Leeds Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship
tea and coffee is provided – please bring lunch
Cost: £5 for pre-booking – send your details + cheque (pay: York DEF) to: Life after Lambeth, St George’s Church, Great George Street, Leeds LS1 3BR
– or £10 on the day.
directions on pre-booking or from Revd John Weetman on 01642 490700

What is this about?
Church of England evangelicals from the seven dioceses in the north-east of England will be meeting in Leeds on 4th October to take stock of what’s happened at the various conferences – most notably GAFCON and Lambeth – over the summer. The meeting, which is for both lay and ordained people, will be at St George’s Church Centre from 10 am to 4 pm and will include input from people at various points on the evangelical spectrum. The Bishop of Selby, Martin Wallace, will be participating, along with others from further afield.

The purpose of the day is not to make statements or issue manifestos, but to help each other understand what’s been going on and what may be fruitful ways forward. Thoughts arising from the day will also be fed into a one-day National Evangelical Anglican Consultation (NEAC) to be held in London in November.

The day is being organised by the York with Ripon and Leeds Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship. Revd Ian Kitchen, the Fellowship’s chairman, says: “We hope that evangelicals will take this opportunity to look at how we can move forward together in the light of what’s been happening over the summer. Life after Lambeth is not intended as a time for forcing people into a uniform point of view; but a chance to hear from participants in the summer conferences, to hear their reflections and to draw closer together as we look ahead.”

This has been posted at Fulcrum with a warm invitation to all concerned to gather, consult and be better informed.  Further information available here in response to comment, or direct from Andy Gubbins, gubbinsrevs@sky.com

I saw this list of names when invited to attend the day with gafcon leaders a couple of weeks before the day conference at All Souls.  My understanding was that the names acted as sponsors and networkers for the event, no doubt in favour of the values to be reflected in the day, but not at that stage in a position to sign up to what we can read now. 

I have just read Giles last response of May 29th, which well expresses his bewilderment (from a perspective of mission and ministry in today's church, similarly to George etc on the Homosexuality thread) at a steam-rollering intransigence on the part of mainstream evangelicals over the issue of sex in faithful homosexual relationships.  The point has now been reached whereby the Conversation seems to be losing its life.  (I wish it were not so! not least in the absence of comment so far on Fulcrum.) 

Yes, the Gagnon correspondence seems to question Giles' theological security for departing from traditional values and assuming a weight of biblical scholarship on either side of the ethical fence.  Is there the freedom of biblical scholarship to follow contemporary experience? to use summaries of biblical theology as licence for widening the remit for sex in faithful relationships to include homosexuality?  However Giles eloquently speaks of the way our biblical interpretation is shaped by experience, and not allowed to rest by the significance of our answers for the mission context.

Regardless of disputed answers at this stage, we should draw confidence from becoming more aware of the strongest arguments, leaving behind 'misrepresentations and caricatures'(ABC).  This is still a conversation that should be alive and active in the communion and in the national church as the demanding practice of discernment across diversity.  

Ending the Goddards' conversation now is something that will be repeated up and down the country, if the Lions of Gafcon carry sway with sympathetic listeners(or not?) at All Souls today.  Although the 'Covenant for the CofE' had already started this separation, Gafcon, even All Souls, anticipates the results of a proper process of discernment such as Lambeth. Can politiking with pastoral responsibility be more blatant than being unable to 'wait for one another' one more month of ten years, and then absenting oneself from the episcopal forum of discernment when it really matters? The current ABC is to be applauded for the authoritative grace that he embodies in official pronouncements, as at times he alone seems committed and not injured by the conversation.

Robert, I have been impressed for sometime by the comprehensive, passionately thorough grasp that you display not only of the biblical text, but also of issues behind and in front of the text.  So it is a privilege to witness the scale and intensity of your response to our queries and discussion here on Fulcrum, if not a little fearsome or unfamiliar in venturing to join in this cross-cultural exchange.  At last I wonder if you might be someone willing to entertain for a moment an analogy I first came across courtesy of W. Brueggeman on these ethics of Christian recognition of faithful gay partnership. 

I have personally never been convinced of attempts to re-read some kind of exception to the condemnation of homosexual practice into the relevant scriptures.  Neither have I been impressed by a trivialisation of the 'purity' issues by comparison with other arcane pieces of Leviticus, as regarded by the 21st Century Modernity.  What has grabbed my attention though is the explicit and implicit development of old testament ethics towards the eunuch in isaiah 56, not least because of the strong denunciation in Leviticus.  With this analogy I find resonance with the fields of sexuality, image, psychology, culture and politics bound up with such 'men' then, and the significance of the gay icons of our own day.  In this treatment in isaiah we also seem to wrestle with what is at the heart of worship, membership and faithfulness for people who offend against nature as createdby God, and yet there is hope!  Robert have you addressed Isaiah 56 anywhere in your writings as bearing relevance to the Church's contemporary wrestling with scripture and conscience over any drastic change to its stance on faithful gay/lesbian/transgendered Christian couples? 

The silence of the Fulcrum forum is indeed puzzling.  Perhaps its the prayerful reflection and self-awareness that befits a genuine conversation? or the introduction of too many interesting threads to ponder, even the Andrew Walls words about an Ephesian moment.  As open evangelicals are we seriously listening for completeness sake, rather than enduring to some kind of victory? 

Sorry George, the link to the 'report on DEF activities' is on CEEC Homepage if you scroll down and click.  A bit thin... 

Bishop Pete's definition of DEFs does not describe our Need for them.  Most of us recognise his experience and description of the DEF spirit: with its back against the wall, under threat from disdain or sheer (in)difference in the diocese and the national church, rife with 'spiritual warfare' and loud with war cries of previous generations, even centuries.   But this alone is atrophy,  a parody of what evangelicals in ministry need today, either as an umbrella organisation, and a platform for witness and ministry, or as a fellowship defining a current identity of evangelicalism in the CofE, whether lay or ordained. 

The Ripon & Leeds experience, of several years hospitality by a 'liberal' Bishop with facilitation by a senior evangelical, led eventually this month to a renewal of local DEF membership, and the neighbouring DEF investigating contact with a Bishop or Archdeacon for consultation and encouragement.  I'm sure engagement and progress across whatever divide stems more from contentment than embattlement

What I would welcome in a DEF is the sharing of Word and Spirit, peer referencing within a familiar but not necessarily identical framework, an overlapping sense of what we are about in parishes (that is not always possible in the incomprehension within deaneries reflecting the full range of the CofE) and a collective energy to bring about constructive change in diocesan/national priorities, styles and structures.  I'm committed to renewal of deanery structures too, but the constraints on expression of values and spirituality can be greater still.

I started this strand wondering if it was possible to move beyond 'positions' that are often primarily political to rediscover shared needs that might be more vocational or pastoral within our Evangelical tradition and the fabric of the CofE at diocesan/archdeaconry levels. 

I guess movements like Reform, Anglican Mainstream, even Fulcrum are well placed to major on the valuable politics. Who is majoring on the Networks?  Fulcrum has some way to go before its name is more than aspirational.  New Wine is still a mystery to me. Are we evangelical enough to invest emotionally in relationships and a fellowship structure in DEFs that might just be ripe for renewal at such a time as this; or am I 10 years too late?

But can this invaluable network perform such a role if the officers of CEEC major on a politics to divide and rule evangelicals?  How mature a connection really exists between the Bishops and CEEC, let alone Reform? 

Have just read the CEEC Constitution, their review of DEF morale/communications, etc on the CEEC website.  I've found Pete's commentary as sharp as usual, and am intrigued about plenty of stuff re CEEC and DEFs that still seems well hidden or controlled by the hands of the few, particularly for this Century.  The electors for CEEC are only the Chair and Sec. of a DEF. unless a DEF is no longer functional, in which case certain people on CEEC can nominate two upstanding people from that same diocese to be the electors.  How many Dioceses have functional DEFs with nominated officials i wonder. 

The review of Communication and Morale on the website (not sure how old!) got returns from 20 officials in the whole network, I thinks thats right, and that on an abreviated set of topics.

You can probably tell by now that the primary object of the CEEC is CONSULTATION of the full breadth of the Evangelical Constituency.  Admittedly the size of the Council seems large, so does the Council believe it is fulfilling its vocation purely within its own existence, without need for further validation, more thorough reseach, or effective networking?

I quote  feedback from my local CEEC rep, whose just off on holiday, which offers hope for renewal after the CEEC meeting that of which I was certainly unaware on fulcrum.  Pete are you at liberty to indicate any more detail about initiatives, or constitutional decisions, or feedback after the Covenant debacle, or just plans for openness of minutes from a body with such a representative role? 

My sense of what would assist DEFs to rediscover a vitality of witness and fellowship, includes Reconnection with the Centre through real and regular Consultation.  Is this anywhere near the self-understanding of Council members or how you and anyones else out there reads the Constitution.  Have we got any conservative evangelical voices interested enough in the structures to comment on how they see the CEEC set-up at present? 

Lastly I enjoyed the grace saturated statement of faith for CEEC, can't remember if its different to those used for DEF membership, but are those of you with highly sensitive theological antennae comfy with it?   Thanks for picking up this DEF ball and running with the themes. I think Pete's 'realism' about the vitality (or not) of DEF and CEEC is a helpful spur to us to grapple further...    

I'm literally just off on holiday - had meant to mail everyone about CEEC
but didn't get round to it. The gathering was very encouraging in tone and
sensible in output. Definitely no downplaying of DEFs, rather the reverse.
Mopre info when I get back.

Just so! Its what some 'evangelical' people have been asking in Ripon and Leeds, when contemplating moving beyond the annual invitation of the Bishop to meet with one another, to operate from our own initiative.  I am vague on the history of Diocesan Evangelical Fellowships (DEF).  But in recent years I wonder if a number have been either sleepy or in suspended animation owing to the yawning gaps between open and conservative, pressure of work, parochialism, globalism, etc.

Anyway DEFs send people to the CEEC (Church of England Evangelical Council) which has just met, I believe, with an outcome hopefully less dynamite than the fateful Covenant of last year; but still with an important focus on what is the nature of Evangelical Fellowship that the CEEC is meant to foster for the future.  They may have been looking at issues of representativeness or effectiveness apparently, a choice reminiscent of the seeming politics around Wycliffe Hall.  Dr Turnbull is Chair of the CEEC.    (The CEEC email a mailing list from the last National Conference.)

Anyway, Dr Turnbull paid a visit to the DEF for our area this Summer. He came across as far from eirenic, and promoted his latest publication instead of taking feedback on the Covenant etc from those assembled.  To be fair, some in the audience warmed to his tone whilst the jaws of others dropped at his comments.  At least it was a rare association of OE and CE round here. 

We seem to retreat to other networks like New Wine, Fulcrum, Reform, Deanery chapter etc these days.   So I wondered whether there are good examples of evangelicals consulting together at local, area or regional levels beyond the big conferences and across the divides, just to inspire.  Encouragingly York, Leeds and Ripon DEF has just signed up a tranche of clergy to membership, and the global crises lead some to ask for a regional conference in the North East after Lambeth in the Autumn of '08.  But will those of us of OE tendencies be able to stomach/dialogue with the differing CE stances, and still retain a strong sense of Evangelical loyalty, even if its at the possible expense of CofE Unity?  I'm not confident of healthy debate unless we have (re)built more bridges first.  So I find myself returning to the old wineskin of the DEF, wondering what to do with it.  Perhaps others wonder about the CEEC.