The plant is at the request of David Isherwood.

Two new pieces of news:

1)  the first payment from the Trust has been received by the Diocese.

Payments are trickling through to the Diocese from Trust churches supporting other Trust churches.

2)  others, in other Dioceses, are interested in forming similar Trusts,

because of the disillusionment with Diocesan quota schemes.

That is all I know for now. 

How those other churches think of a parish invited plant into HT Clapham is, I would gently suggest, irrelevant.

HT Clapham have invited a plant to rejuvenate them.

And that is their business.

They are to be commended for it.

Would that more churches had the courage to do that.

Rather than expect the rest of us to subsidize them massively for often what is an uninspiring work. 

I would have thought that the meaning of the word revisionist would be self-evident:
those who seek to revise the faith, according to modern mores.

Perhaps I should have used the term 'ear pleasers'  instead ? 

2 Timothy 4:3 ~ For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Often opposition can come from local revisionist incumbents. So I know of a large evangelical church wanting to plant.

But revisionists are pushing every other solution (including less  financially viable options), to prevent a morally conservative church doing a plant. 

Don't forget HTB are planting into Clapham at the request of the incumbent.

They are not taking over a redundant parish by permission of the Diocese.

That has not happened for 25 years south of the River. 

(The last one was St Mark's Battersea Rise)

My understanding that the plant into Clapham came at the initiative of the current Rector, David Isherwood, not the DIocese.

But others may know more. 

You also assume that the SGST is 'working against the Bishop'. It is not.

It is saying that it wants to fund orthodox Gospel work through parishes in the Diocese. Rather than fund revisionism. 

I would have thought that what Jago and what SGST are doing are but two sides of the same coin. 

I promised to give an update re the Trust.

I hear that some 4-5 PCCs have already voted to join the Trust.

So all is not dead, it seems.

But wheels grind exceedingly slow in Anglican circles, even in alternative ones, ha ha .

Bowman:

The Trust is being launched on July 2nd, I believe.

So I guess quite a number of the DEU members will be there then. As well as others from other Dioceses, I understand. 

David R:

The aim of the Trust, as I understand it, is to preserve and fund and flourish orthodox work. 

The aim is not to bankrupt the liberals. 

That may be a consequence.  (Although I think unlikely actually).

But it is not the aim. 

The early Church only subsidized churches that agreed with.

They were hardly going to fund teachers they were denouncing.

I don't think that is eisegesis. I think it is plain old common sense!

I wonder whether a key text in all this is:  'the worker is worth his wages'.

The CofE has depended on subsidies far too long.

And not taken stewardship seriously.

If Free Churches don't pay their way, they don't exist.

We need to move, and move quickly, to the situation like in the Diocese in Europe.

They pay for their ministers, and there is v little Diocesan machinery.

If they can't pay, they don't survive.  Or they have some house for duty perspn. 

Bowman asked:  "What do you see as the cohesive force in the Trust to prevent that? If you see one, is that force for cohesion strong enough to include non-evangelicals?"

From what one can read so far re the Trust, it appears to be the Jerusalem Declaration which is the cohesive force.   That is a a Declaration that many conservative minded Anglicans have been happy to sign. 

Three illustrations:  1) Those originally in Jerusalem  were not all evangelical by any means by the look of their dress

2) Those at the FCA launch in London - Bishop John Hind was among them. 

3)  Those who have been ejected from The Episocopal Church.  CANA is a pretty broad theological bag. 

On that basis, I would be pretty confident that those who are united against revisionism  would hold together. 

They seem to have elsewhere. 

Stephen Kuhrt said yesterday on Premier that the Southwark Good Stewards Trust would be 'catastrophic'

for the Church of England.

http://www.premier.org.uk/news/current/Controversial%20funding%20pot%20catastrophic%20for%20CofE.aspx

Do you agree?
 

Or is it revisionist theology that will prove to be catastrophic for the Church of England ? 

John:
I did say humanly speaking, ie. with what we do - preach the Gospel.

Of course the Gospel begins in the Trinity. In the will of God. And in election (Eph 1).

But you have not answered my point re the biblical attitude to false prophets and how that translates over into the NT.