A pretty good analysis of the antics of the last few years, I thought, but the 'not mincing words' policy didn’t last to the end of the article. I found it hard to understand what lessons he is drawing from it all. Presumably the ‘congregationalism’ stuff is about getting on with the work of discipling members of the local church regardless of the lunacy of those in the human hierarchy, and I can applaud that, but when it comes to specific application of this principle, I got lost. Consider this bit: 'The Eucharist as the end of common prayer? Without reaching that end, ever and again, and forming for that end, baptizing and raising up and serving for that end, and being formed through that end, there are left only the excuses of those who do not understand what a divine invitation really is (Mt. 22).' What does all that mean, exactly?

I switch back and forth between lectionary and topical preaching. When I sense that the congregation needs or wants a particular topic explored, I change one or more of the readings to something that addresses the topic. When I'm done with the topic, I go back to the lectionary. I find the lectionary a useful place to start, but too limiting to be used on all occasions.

"Hopefully Philip Wainwright will post some of the other talks you mentioned." The other two talks were Bible studies, and neither of them were recorded. The first looked at one of the passages cited in Biblical Reasons for Staying in the Episcopal Church, and was mostly general discussion. The second, by Mario Gonzalez, began with a more sustained presentation which may have been from a prepared text, but Mario's away till October 6th so I won't know until then whether there's anything that can be posted. I hope there is--it was an excellent examination of the sheep and the goats passage in Matthew 25. 

Although I wish he had been a little clearer about his previously expressed determination to stay in PECUSA--I think Graham is reading more into it than is there when he calls it a 'clarion call to remain and fight for biblical orthodoxy'--it was on the whole a hopeful and positive speech. He seems to be proposing the policy that was tried here in Pittsburgh a few years ago, when we withdrew from Province III and made canonical changes saying that if there was a conflict between national canons and local canons, the local would take precedence. Unfortunately, this policy was short-lived, so we never found out what effect it might have on the national church, and I'm glad to see it given another try.

One of the reasons why it was short-lived was that it turned out not to satisfy the largest and most conservative parishes, and within a year or two their rectors went to Bishop Duncan and said 'we're leaving, with or without you'. He chose to go with them, and did so in a way that had terrible results--loss of parishioners in every orthodox parish, those that stayed and those that left for ACNA.

Bishop Lawrence made this speech because one or two rectors of his largest and most orthodox parishes were talking about leaving because of the recent General Convention, and it remains to be seen whether this policy will satisfy them. I suspect that the same conversation that took place in Pittsburgh will take place in SC in a year or two--probably right after the consecration of the next actively homosexual bishop. He would be well advised to start thinking about that conversation today.

The comment 'you CANNOT read this without feeling the dagger' is like so many that have been made in similar situations that I know well, my ministry being in the USA not in England, that I wonder if some of the same dynamics are involved.

What happened at the founding of many of the groups similar to the FCA in the US in the last decade was that a group of influential clergy would get together, come up with a plan to deal with the problems presented by the current leadership of PECUSA, then announce its launch-date and invite people to rally round the new flag. They were always shocked and hurt when there were people who questioned the announced approach, and if the questioning was public, expressions like 'stabbed in the back' would soon follow.

Having been on the receiving end of such expressions more than once, I've devoted a lot of thought to this, and it seems to me that people who organise groups like the FCA without listening to points of view like Stephen Kuhrt's beforehand MUST be willing to listen to them afterwards, and must discipline themselves NOT to 'feel the dagger'. I was very impressed when this actually seemed to happen after NEAC 5.

Whatever the facts, Stephen's article raised a reasonable point, that the FCA will cause 'anarchy' in his diocese, and those supportive of the FCA could address it reasonably rather than castigate him for making it, and continue to address him reasonably even if he remains unconvinced by their arguments.

http://canterburytrail.wordpress.com/

'Who honestly believes that TEC will reform? Is that even a seriously considered outcome of all this?'

Any church can be reformed; it’s Jesus Christ Who builds the church, and Who rebuilds it when some vandal has torn a bit down. It doesn't happen as quickly as some of us would like, but so what? The Episcopal Church took at least fifty years to get into its current state, and no doubt will take as long to be reformed. The Archbishop is clearly thinking in the long term, which is what annoys so many people who want it all sorted out next week. There are many people still in the Episcopal Church who believe it can be and will be reformed, God willing, and one of them at least thinks the Reflections will eventually turn out to have been a significant part of that.

The best thing everyone else can do for the Episcopal Church is to encourage all its members to think very carefully about what the Archbishop is saying.

PS--according to its Constitution, the full name of the Episcopal Church is 'The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, also known as The Episcopal Church' (unless they revised it in Anaheim). PECUSA, ECUSA, and TEC are all correct abbreviations. I like PECUSA because I think the Protestant tradition in TEC is the one most likely to work for its reform.

I agree that the Reflections are 'clear, wise and helpful', and Graham Kings' summary covers most of the important points. It's also worth pointing out that Williams' approach is clearly designed to encourage reform in the Episcopal Church rather than punish it.

It would be more willingly received in the Episcopal Church if it at least reminded the rest of the Communion that there is supposed to be a moratorium on 'border crossings' too, but the fact that it gives no encouragement to those who are trying to set up a purer alternative to PECUSA goes at least part of the way in that direction.

http://canterburytrail.wordpress.com/

'Please ignore the provocative Liberal noises and continue the Open Evangelical debate.'

Yes--surely this was intended to be a debate about Fulcrum's response to what General Convention did, not about whether what it did was right or wrong. I've suggested that Fulcrum's response can only be judged once we know what Fulcrum was trying to achieve, which is still not clear.

I suspect that by now all the readers who could have contributed something interesting to that discussion have moved on to other threads, or other sites.

One thing that should be remembered as Fulcrum makes its recommendations on how the other Anglican churches should respond to General Convention is that PECUSA's flaunting of the two moratoria is the inevitable response to the flaunting of the third moratorium by so many other Anglican churches.

The proposal by some for the C of E to declare itself in communion with ACNA and the other American churches created by border-crossing bishops will institutionalise the flaunting of the third moratorium in exactly the same way as PECUSA has institutionalised its flaunting of the other two, no doubt with many similar arguments--'it's where we are' 'we must recognise their right to a full place in the church' and so on.

B033 showed that PECUSA can be influenced by intelligently applied pressure from other churches, D025 shows that the pressure has not been applied intelligently enough. The question remains: is the goal reform of those wandering from the path, or feeling good about ourselves for being (apparently) still on the right path.

http://canterburytrail.wordpress.com/

The question for the C of E and the rest of the Anglican Communion is whether it is interested in bringing back to the right path its members who have wandered from it, or simply abandoning them to their fate. Not hard to make a biblical case either way, but one can't help suspecting that a preference for the latter is mostly an expression of 'Lord, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this supporter of the gay agenda'.

The best thing about Tom Wright's article for me was 'we should not forget the Episcopalian bishops, who, doggedly loyal to their own Church, and to the expressed mind of the wider Communion, voted against the current resolution. Nor should we forget the many parishes and worshippers who take the same stance.' It's a long time since I heard anything like that, even on Fulcrum. When you walk apart from us, you may feel very good about yourselves, but you're not working for the Kingdom.

http://canterburytrail.wordpress.com/

I can't speak for the Fulcrum team, but even though I am a conservative Evangelical who holds almost all the same opinions as Reform, Sydney Evangelicals and all the rest of it, I know that when I speak of GAFCON, FCA etc many people hear the same 'visceral distaste' for them that Fulcrum is accused of.

When Wallace Benn says "We love our church... we're not going anywhere," I'd like to cheer, because I have exactly the same attitude to my church, which is PECUSA. But I can't cheer, because everything he and FCA and GAFCON are doing are making it harder for me to do what Scripture calls me to do, which is to work for the reform of my church. Instead of supporting people like me, whether he means to or not he is supporting those who have walked off the job, who have done all they can to make sure it is never reformed. I'm sure I could agree with every word of the Jerusalem statement, but when those who support it speak about why it had to be said, all they talk about is saving Anglicanism. As an Evangelical I couldn't care less about Anglicanism--it's just another 'tradition of men' that has been an idol for Anglo-catholics for generations, and now appears to be becoming an idol for Evangelicals too. I can't count how many talks by Reform/Sydney types I've attended where I've heard variations on the theme 'there's nothing about denominationalism in the Bible from beginning to end' and here they are talking about saving the denomination--'The FCA exists to keep Anglicanism united' Jensen said today. What on earth are they all on about? Anglicanism is just an idea, a bit of shorthand that can be useful at times; the churches referred to by the term are realities in which the gospel is, occasionally, proclaimed, and the only thing worth working for is to get it proclaimed more frequently in them--including PECUSA.

Those of us who are staying in PECUSA hoping to reform it find no encouragement in all these groups whose only purpose seems to be to remove the one thing that has actually made Episcopalians slow down, which is pressure from the wider church of which PECUSA is a part. If that pressure continues to be applied intelligently and, more importantly, without ceasing, ten years from now, twenty years from now, there might be the desired result. But if GAFCON and FCA have their way, that won't happen, because PECUSA will have been kicked out of the only body that has shown an ability to make it think again. That's what ACNA's goal is; mine is to reform my church, theirs is to see it abandoned. Don't be surprised if irritation with them is occasionally visible from some from whom they might have expected support. Their hearts may be in the right place, but their heads are not.

In the end, it won't be just a problem for PECUSA, either. If the GAFCON types don't change their approach, the distaste the C of E establishment obviously has for the GAFCON solution will soon set them thinking about leaving the C of E and their other churches. And then the churches they claim to love will have lost all that they loved about them, robbed of it by those who claimed to love them.