Looks like details have now been released:

http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=1471

The appointments in Southwark were not made en bloc.

They were made one after another, with concerned representations from evangelicals after each one.

Thus people are speaking of a revisionist trajectory.

The Bishop in the DEU meeting distinguished between the perception and the reality of being heard.

Yet his resposne in the DEU meeting and the succession of revisionist appointments  indicates, does it not,

a reality of evangelicals not being heard.  not a perception.

On the matter of the Trust:  my understanding that just as GAFCON is a renewal movement, so the Trust is. 

It is not about separating off into another denomination.

But I guess we should wait to hear more details, before passing judgement ? 

LondonVicar, I rejoice in your ministry and wish it nothing but blessing in the gospel. - not least as a one-time London vicar myself ....

Thanks, David. You make a number of points so I will weave my responses into yours, if I may. 

You do write as if you assume that the points you make are common ground among evangelicals. They are not. You also communicate a deep suspicion and mistrust of your own church.  I find that disturbing. That is not to say I do not have concerns about for the church. I do. But I would love to think evangelical presence in the church would be characterised by a more hopeful, generous and hospitable spirit.

You are right. They are not common ground amongst evangelicals. I am being provocative to spur others to think. 

I think when many things have happened in the CofE to try to overturn Lambeth 1.10, I and others  are right ot be wary. Our own articles remind us that the visible church does err.  (Article 19).  I am putting one side of the argument in this forum. Generally I do seek to be hopeful, generous and hospitable, in my dealings and talking with others.  

Some brief specific responses if I may:

You write 'you must not presume that we have given up on Diocesan structures. AMIE is a safety net.' (I notice you are now part of 'we' in this statement).

A safety net is there for accidents. Well that is a novel way of describing what little we know of AMIE. So the three ordinands ordained in secret in African are there in case we have an accident over here? - I think not. AMIE is a threat to override existing structures of authority and leadership in the CofE. The threat is - if you (bishops) do not behave or believe as we think you should we will go elsewhere.

You make a good point here about the safety net. 

I am not naive about the Kenyan ordinations.

But we have had accidents over here over many years. 

The accident is the pro gay agenda which is like the many headed hydra. It keeps coming and coming and coming. 

I would say: what other alternatives are there to AMIE that actually are working?

That are preventing those who are pushing a gay agenda from gaining more and more ground.

A gay bishop is not that far away. (It recently came v close, were it not for the Archbishop of Canterbury's intervention).  Civil partnerships are now permitted for clergy.  There are those in the CofE who are pushing for gay marriage in church (as are Quakers and Methodists).  What other mechanism do you have for preventing this or making a stand, if things do come to pass?  The evangelical left has yet to propose another solution: I await with interest to hear it. 

I need you to define 'liberal' more carefully please. It is too easily used by evangelicals as a label for all that is wrong in the CofE. I agree there is an important theological and biblical debate to be had. But I am just as concerned about some of the narrow strident conservatism actually.

AMIE is not just about conservative conservatives. I would not class Michael Nazir-Ali as a conservative evangelical, not in the traditional sense. There are others on the Committee who belong to New Wine and are more charismatic. Time will tell whether any High Churchmen join them. 

Finally your total dismissal of the listening process and sweeping claim that English and African bishops have seen though it needs evidence. How do you know? I have followed the listening process closely. I have read many quotes from evangelical English and international bishops who found it transforming at the last Lambeth and admitted it lead to quite new underdstanding of each other and their contexts.  The evangelical tradition  - which has always tended to prefer directive, didactive ways of teaching/learning could learn from it. Which bishops are you talking about? How do you know they are typical? Can you give me your sources?

You are right. I need to cite chapter and verse. But any cursory look through the Primates communiques and GAFCON communications over the last few years will show this.  Again I stress GAFCON is not a British thing. It is a movement subscribed to by a vast number of Primates who probably represent some 80% of Anglicans worldwide. 

Hope this helps: let's keep talking.

And I will try to be more moderate in my tone !

Thanks

response to DavidR:

I have just defined WE as those of us who are on this discussion, and THEY as those who have a position within AMIE.  That is all.

Thanks Tony.

I think we must be careful not to caricature evangelical churches that would welcome the ministry of AMIE.

Some are co-mission and of a certain type and style.

But many are not, including my own.

(I was very gratified when a visiting curate recently said that when he walked in, we didn't FEEL to him like a conservative evangelical church. And I said : 'You mean, we felt friendly, not angular?!" )
 

I think also you must not presume that we have given up on Diocesan structures.

AMIE is a safety net.

No-one wants to set up alternative structures. It is that they fear the Gospel being lost in the liberal slide. 

Lambeth have had four years to get their house in order [I would say far longer]. 

There has been v little definite leadership.

The Africans [and others] have tired of the endless listening process [which is just an excuse to batter the orthodox down] and want to help those in the UK who are also equally  tired of it.

I very much hope that Lambeth looks across the water, sees the huge growth of ACNA, and learns the lesson.

But it has not yet.

Response to David R:

By 'we' i mean all of us on this website.

By 'they' , I mean those within AMIE [I am not]

For myself, for the moment, it helps me to be franker under my current handle,

and help Fulcrum engage with another point of view

But if you do not want that, I will push off.........

I have not seen the document, no.

I do not know the names of those ordained - well I perhaps know one, but cannot be sure.

I am not sure the names are particularly relevant.  I am sure the names have not been publicized to save those who have been ordained coming under personal fire.

Don't forget that all this was done with the express knowledge and permission of the Archbishop of Kenya:

he knows what he is doing.  It is because he so fears for the liberal slide of the CofE.

I did ask whether it was possible to see the 50 page document.

I was told that there was too much embarrassing personal stuff in it. 

However I have asked if summary of it could be published, or perhaps an edited introduction of it. 

So I am trying !

I think Stephen Kuhrt's assertion that this was all done rather secretly is false.

Those proposing AMIE have been speaking with Lambeth for 4 years about the need for such a society.

They submitted a 50 page document to Lambeth about this.

It is only that WE have heard of it of late. I think that is what Mr Kuhrt is unhappy about.

It is not new news for Lambeth and other bishops.