Hmm - thread's getting complex.

To Liddon - however much you may represent the CofE's position on these matters as vacillating, I'm afraid that you're simply not being true to the facts. The Act of Synod is part of the deal we had to enter into in order ordain women as priests. It predates Rowan (and most of the present HoB). But it is the CofE's position that women are properly ordained priest in the Church of God and that it's possible to be a member of the CofE in good conscience and disbelieve that women can be priests. That's how it is. Synod hasn't changed that, and the Archbishop can't wave a wand to make it not the case.

Similarly, there is a GS position on homosexuality (from 1987) which hasn't changed; and same sex blessings are not authorised in the CofE. It's again not within the Archbishop's power to change that. We aren't (thank God) a papacy.

Because the liberals in the CofE don't like the fact that Rowan hasn't changed the position on these matters, they want him out. But no other Archbishop would have the power to do it either. And you'd be losing a great theologian, pastor and leader just out of a fit of pique. We appoint Archbishops (and Bishops) to be leaders for the whole church, not for one special interest group.

As for the question about what the evangelical bishops and Reform are saying to each other, and how that relates to the policy of the House of Bishops, that, it seems to me, is not for the public arena at this stage. Suffice it to say that we're talking, and continuing to meet. And want to keep the channels of communication open, even though we profoundly disagree on a number of issues such as women bishops, the Anglican covenant, and tactics. But it's part of what I said in the previous paragraph about not being partisan. FiF and Reform are both still part of the CofE.

Liddon - this shows such a complete (and deliberate?) misunderstanding of the role of the Archbishop. He's not there to be a campaigner; he's there to lead the Church forward, but starting from where it is, not where you'd like it to be. The CofE has a position on women priests which includes a continuing position for those opposed. It has a position on the ordination of people in homophile relationships and same sex blessings which is not the one you advocate.

He's not there to be the poodle of liberal pressure groups. He's not there to be your trusted mate who was going to carry forward your pet agendas. The liberals who stab Rowan in the back have stopped being his friends (if they ever were). They've betrayed him; not the other way round. "Put the boot into the Archbishop" is a pathetic game to play.

Well, time to eat public humble pie and apologise to Jonathan Wynne-Jones. I said, earlier on this thread, that he'd got it wrong about Reform going for overseas oversight. But, as this http://http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2007/10/18/people-and-parishes-prepared-for-irregular-action-reform-chairman/

shows, they clearly are planning to go overseas for their bishops. So - sorry, Jonathan.

It's highly regrettable, particularly as we had a meeting between the evangelical bishops and Reform a few days before the story first surfaced, and Reform Council said that they didn't want to go this route, but would prefer an English solution.

So we're back to a situation where we're trying to be helpful to, and have dialogue with, a group who feel disenfranchised in the Church of England, but where it's very difficult to know what they really do think or want. And my great fear is that the overseas solution will simply cause even people who might have been sympathetic to Reform's concerns to turn against them. Which will increase their sense of alienation. So, my plea to Reform is - please do not go down the overseas road. Stay within the Church of England, and seek to work within its structures.

I think that a lot of members of CEEC are emotionally and ecclesially wedded to the so-called "Covenant". We have been discussing its content at each meeting of CEEC. What comes out in discussion is that many of its supporters don't comprehend how it comes across/is perceived by a wider readership. I tackled them on the "we only want to be in fellowship with like-minded people" section at the last CEEC meeting, suggesting that it read as though they were opting out of deaneries and dioceses. They really didn't see that it read that way, and were insistent that it was only about dissociation from heretics. There is a huge culture and plausibility structure gap between ultra-conservative evangelicals and everybody else which does need addressing urgently - which is why I'm glad that there are continuing discussions between Reform and the evangelical bishops.

With regard to DEFs, I suspect that we shall only reinvent them where they are needed. Evangelicals who feel embattled need a DEF much more than those who are happily getting on with the job in the diocese. The latter category are, I think, very much in the majority!

Frankly, I don't think the CEEC thing is solvable. 20+ years ago, it was chaired by John Stott (who was universally recognised as a unitive figure for evangelicals. The members were recognisably mainstream evangelicals (in the original sense of that word). The only ultra conservative tended to be the representative of Church Society (David Samuel, for those who remember him - I think he's now a bishop in a breakaway denomination). But those who played with CEEC in the 1980s took seriously what they said they would do. They engaged with the CofE through Synod, and through being involved as bishops and archdeacons. And, after John Stott (and to some extent Richard Bewes), there was no chair of CEEC who was seen to be a unitive force. So it was ripe for takeover by the ultra conservatives. Which they've done, very effectively. And the lack of need for (and atrophy of) DEFs has made the electoral base weak. Plus the constitution has been changed to allow the conservatives to co-opt their cronies onto it. But there is nothing else that is constituted as an evangelical Anglican voice.

Fulcrum is one voice among many, and isn't recognised by CEEC as an organisation that should be represented - though, bizarrely, the Christian Institute is!

If you want to stand for election in the current round, feel free, and get elected and come and join us. It's an interesting experience - I meet all kinds of Christians whom I wouldn't normally meet in the normal run of things...

I think what has happened to Diocesan Evangelical Fellowships and Diocesan Evangelical Unions is that they have lost their significance as evangelical Anglicanism has changed. When evangelicals were a small minority in a diocese, DEFs were important for prayer support, fellowship, learning, and taking counsel together over what "the Diocese" was doing. In some places, that's still their role. But several things have changed:

1. Evangelicals aren't just in the parishes of evangelical (CPAS, Church Society, Hyndman, Simeon) patronage - they are in all sorts of places, facing very different issues, and no longer defined by particular evangelical "badges" like what you wear for services, or what communion rite you use.

2. Most evangelicals join in at deanery level and recognise their colleagues as Christian! (it wasn't always the case...)

3. New Wine and Reform et al. provide networks that are far more effective than DEFs can.

4. Many more folk in the diocesan structures are evangelical, or understand the things that evos have issues with - so you don't have to be against everything (though that's still the mentality of some!)

With regard to CEEC, these days it's dominated by folk from a more conservative evangelical  background, simply because they've made a conscious decision to use CEEC and the post Keele evangelicals have mostly not bothered with it. [Also, many of the post Keele open evos are deeply stuck into the structures of the CofE (as we said we would!) and have little time for evangelical networking]. And the folk who get co-opted to it are those of a more conservative evangelical flavour, too, so it consolidates itself as a ConEvo structure. But is the only representative body we've got that can claim to speak for evangelical Anglicans, so it has to be made to work. The membership is here: http://http://www.ceec.info/council.htm

I suspect that this is a smoke screen. Questions at General Synod in July elicited a response that there would be an enquiry. Now we have an announcement that there has been a slight bringing forward of the routine inspection.

Clare MacInnes' resignation letter to the Bishop of Liverpool makes it clear that she thinks this was a tactic on the part of the Council:

"In addition, I was very disturbed by your update to Council on the findings of this Committee last week.  In particular, by the manner in which you talked about seeing off a further inspection of the Hall until Michaelmas 2008.  I understood they wanted to come in to inspect either this term or next.  It suggested to me that we had something to hide, whereas I would have preferred to demonstrate some immediate transparency over the affairs of the Hall."

/Tangent

Just to say that I've got no problem what people call me. My approach is to say "Call me whatever you feel comfortable with". Some of my clergy call me Bishop; some call me Pete. Others call me all sorts of other things...

Tangent/

Matthew - I owe you no explanation. It's for the College Council to state their grounds for taking action, rather than keeping silence. If they can explain and justify their actions against the background of all the criticisms contained in the press reports, the letters from former staff, the broadcast interviews on Radio 4 and Radio Ulster and the resignation letter from the member of Council, then we shall be getting somewhere. I rather think there's quite enough evidence out there already. The silence from the Hall Council and the Principal is deafening.