I think what worries me about John Richardson's essay (and he's an old mate of mine from college days, so I don't want to diss him) is his almost complete lack of understanding about what bishops in the Church of England actually do. I'm a bit too busy at present to write a detailed refutation, but the questions it raises for me are:

1. Do evangelical Anglican clergy (and laity) genuinely and generally think that the picture he paints of the work of a bishop and what our priorities are is an accurate one?

2. If this is a generally held impression, what can be done to acquaint people with the reality?

3. Does this lack of comprehension lie at the heart of much of the stuff that is going on in relation to bishops and some parishes at present?

These are genuine questions. I'm not sure that most of the clergy in my episcopal area would share anything like John's views; indeed, I'm sure I may delude myself that they know what bishops are for, what they do, and the theological and practical value of episcopacy. But it would be interesting (without derailing this thread) to tease out whether these views are widespread.

Ken wrote: "I am awaiting whatever is to come next. Much before certain debates of particular motions in General Synod. One presumes that various 'conversations' are going on now. Has anyone news of such possibilities?"

It is my hope that there will be a useful dialogue between the authors of the Covenant and the evangelical bishops, with a view to finding a way forward. It is also likely that there will be amendments to both the motions for February Synod, on the basis that neither of them will advance their respective causes, and will only muddy the waters in the Anglican Communion at this juncture.

[Incidentally, how do I get to post under a real name, rather than this "User" stuff?]

It really does need reading with the Schedule attcahed - which can be found on ACNS.

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/50/acns4253.cfm

Sorry to double post. The schedule is most significant.

It gives ECUSA seven months to declare itself Windsor-compliant.

It proposes the setting-up of a pastoral scheme to deal with requests for different episcopal oversight - and on that basis, proposes an end to interventions from overseas provinces.

It requests an end to property disputes.

There is a lot here that addresses the concerns raised about ECUSA very directly, though one suspects that ECUSA folk may not receive it with great equanimity.

I think it is easy to be unfair to ultra conservative evangelicals. Many of them were brought up (as I was) on 2 major stories.

One was Francis Schaeffer's slippery slope (admit that scripture can be mistaken in one matter, and the whole edifice of the reliability of scripture falls apart). Now, I happen still to hold to scripture as perspicuous, authoritative, definitive and trustworthy and reliable in all that it affirms about the salvation story. In that respect, I'm happy with classical evangelical formulations about scripture. But then along came "inerrantism" from the other side of the pond, and screwed up the ways in which we express it. Ultracon evos have bought into that.

The other story is the "separation for the sake of truth" paradigm, played out (for example) between the IVF and SCM (where, ironically given UCCF's current stance) I would have been on the side of IVF; and between CMS and BCMS. This tends to mean that the ultracons (perhaps neocons, since arguably they are the cuckoo in the nest of evangelical Anglicanism, importing Sydney into the UK) are always looking out for the liberal enemy within. Thus UCCF diss Spring Harvest; all of them diss the evangelical bishops; Reform diss Fulcrum; etc. It's all a function of the purity myth which sees everything we disagree about as "contending for the truth", and therefore needing lines to be drawn in the sand.

Now, I do know evangelicals whose doctrinal and ethical stances I would probably describe as liberal, but I don't recognise in the vast number of evangelical Anglicans with whom I'm in contact (most of whom wouldn't go near Reform, though they would in many cases self-identify with New Wine) any change from the evangelical Anglicanism that has been a part of the Church of England since Keele. So (and I blogged the rest of this on John Richardson's blog, in response to his request for a debate) here's my two pennyworth as a theologically conservative open evangelical:

"To be honest, most of us who would call ourselves "open evangelicals" would say we thus self-describe because we're fed up with being called liberals by the ultra conservative evangelicals, and we've been prevented from calling ourselves "mainstream" because the ultra conservatives have nicked that label. But, in order to keep the debate going, here's my go at exploring what I think Open Evangelical means...


Towards a definition of "Open Evangelical"

"Open evangelical" is a term that has emerged in the context of evangelical Anglicanism in the UK. Broadly speaking it is those who see themselves as heirs of the Keele Congress of 1967, when evangelical Anglicans committed themselves to work in the mainstream of the Church of England, who would want to wear that label. "Open evangelical" is usually defined over against "conservative evangelical", although open evangelicals would claim to be conservative on scripture and radical on everything else.

What are open evangelicals in the Church of England open to ?

1. Biblical scholarship
Believing scripture to be inspired, but not wishing to wear the inerrantist label, and content to accept that theology is a positive gift to the church, and that hermeneutics are essential to the task of understanding an inspired scripture.

2. Cultural change
An unchanging gospel must be proclaimed in a variety of cultural contexts, and to be open is to be culturally aware and adaptable.

3. Other theological traditions
Open evangelicals would accept that others not owning the evangelical label are also Christians, and would want to learn from them.

4. Holistic mission
Most open evangelicals are convinced that evangelism and social action go hand in hand, and that the motivation for social and political engagement is God's activity and calling to people and churches, and not merely a means of pre-evangelism.

5. The Church of England
A majority of evangelical Anglicans would want to wear the label that way round, with "evangelical" as the adjective that defines "Anglican". This entails a commitment to the structures and ecclesiology of the Church of England.

6. The full ministry of women in the church
Open evangelicals supported the ordination of women to the priesthood (the conservatives didn't), and would argue from scripture that women can be both priests and bishops, and take their full part in the Church of England's ministry.

7. Evangelism
To be an open evangelical is to believe that every structure in the church must pass the acid test "does this further the mission of God?" There is no point in the church being there for its own sake. It is only there as sign of the Kingdom.

8. The World
Open evangelicals are basically world affirming. They believe that the role of the Church of England is to be the church for the whole country, and that to be committed to that view entails working with the grain of society rather than against it.

9. New patterns of worship, prayer, and liturgy
Experiment in the area of worship is a hallmark of open evangelical Anglicanism. They have been in the forefront of devising new liturgy, writing new songs, and encouraging new patterns of worship.

10. God
It is probably the case that open evangelicals have a view of God that sees him more as an agent of change than as a defender of the status quo... "

I'm not sure that it's terribly helpful to the debate for folk to start speculating on candidates for African-sponsored episcopacy. Rather, I think we need to be learning the lessons of the fragmentation that is taking place in ECUSA, and seeking to find English solutions for the CofE.

That I think means:

1. The English HoB giving careful consideration to whether there might be circumstances in which alternative episcopal oversight will need to be offered to parishes on the grounds of fundamental theological disagreement with their diocesan bishop;

2. Parishes who perceive themselves to be in such a situation taking plenty of advice from others, and learning the lessons of history (conservative parishes have lived with liberal bishops for years and years without serious detriment to their worship and mission);

3. Attempts need to be made to ensure that such oversight as may be provided is given, not by retired bishops, bishops from overseas, or bishops from churches with whom the CofE is not in communion, but by bishops who are part of the existing CofE college of bishops, and in relationship with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.

There is no doubt that requests will be made for such oversight; it will be a test of our determination to make the CofE work if we can deliver something coherent.

I'd be helped by knowing what Francis is on about here. What collective failure? What are we meant to have done? (not a defensive comment; I just genuinely haven't any comprehension of what is being alleged against the HoB here. Au contraire, I see a gathering of leaders, who tend in the main to be more conservative than liberal, seeking to do what they are ordained and consecrated to do). So some on, let's have a bit less rhetoric and a bit more specific stuff on what is alleged to be our heinous collective shortcomings.

Well, faced with such an incisive analysis, what is there to say?

1. I and my episcopal colleagues spend most of our lives teaching the truth, arguing for the Christian faith in the public realm, engaging with moral and ethical questions, doing stuff in the media. It's what we do (to coin a well-known phrase!)

2. I am not aware of any collective apostasy, and would be glad to have chapter and verse on where we have deviated from the historic faith. There's not Spong to be seen in the English HoB.

3. Most of our critics have very little idea what we do, because we're getting on with the job, often outside of "churchy" circles.

4. Alongside that, we have the pastoral care of our clergy (185 of them in my case); sorting out parishes that are in meltdown, appointing clergy, doing services...

Some come on, cut the rhetoric, and give us something real to engage with, rather than just cheap shots that have no foundation in reality.

You see, Francis, it really is (if I may so so) uninformed nonsense to suggest that none of the bishops have said publicly what they believe to be the historic teaching of scripture and church on same sex partnerships. User 974 is expressing annoyance with us precisely because we have been seen to say the things that you want us to say. You only have to read the pastoral letters to clergy produced by, inter alia, the Bishops of Rochester, Winchester, Chichester, Carlisle, Chester (and others) to realise that there is a very active defence of that position going on. It may not be universal, but it's certainly there. We do speak the truth entrusted to us, as you so finely put it. Your hearing of that speaking may be partial and selective, in that you would, it seems prefer to believe the worst of us. But I'm afraid your stance simply is not consonant with the facts, which is why we are being urged by others (including others on this thread) to be supportive of openly gay partnered people.

And, of course, teaching and defending the truth is not actually be equated with our stance on one particular aspect of ethics and public morality, important though that is. It's about how we evangelise and teach the faith revealed in the holy scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds - which brings us on to a much wider canvass, where the matters to be addressed are the uniqueness of Jesus Christ; the reality and transcendence of God the Holy Trinity; Christianity as a revealed religion; the incompatibility of panentheism with the Christian faith... Here, as in many things, what has become the norm in some parts of the Anglican Communion is not the norm in the CofE, thank God.