It seems to me to be extraordinary for Baptist Noel and by implication a Church to split on the basis of homosexual activity - what on earth does that say? - rather than gay orientation or on liberalism verses something else.

Well, liberals do vary, but I would have thought that regarding homosexual activity as a part of homosexual identity (as I do) is a key indicator of a liberal view, because it has to be a different approach from that of an evanglelical. Furthermore I regard it as a puzzle to understand what method even a moderate a liberal open to reason and biblical criticism can employ to separate these two.

When the bloggers from the conservative side were becoming very heated about the homosexuality issue, they clearly extended themselves into the apparent liberalism of TEC, its Presiding Bishop and her broader views, and association with the likes of Bishop John Spong. Then they were rather knocked about by the report of the Sub-group saying that TEC had more or less passed demands made upon it, and by the time the communique came out they puzzled over it and the head of steam was all lost. In other words, it was about more than the issue of homosexuality.

I would have thought the liberal view in general does not accept the evangelical stress on dividing up the sinner and the sin, as far too convenient, over labelling, and badly labelling. In fact the whole business of sin is ar more complex anyway than the evangelical stress. For me, there is no condition of some sort of being of sinfulness, rather more simply that people constantly make mistakes as is the business of life, and some do deliberate harm. Homosexuality doesn't feature in this at all, and gay orientation is fulfilled through a relationship not upset by it. After all gay orientation could be just as sinful, and all this pointless and obsessive talk of chastity is as much to kick the orientation into neutrality as any act that follows it through.

More than this, it is just ridiculous, narrow and obsessive. Why not leave people to get on with their lives and take as little notice of them as they no doubt take of you (the evangelical and preaching morality). It is like a band playing a tune on a deserted beach, and no one is listening except members of the band.

The point about open evangelicals is that they do face both ways variously, thus the split point - of some going one way and some the other, institutionally - is in the open evangelical territory.

Welcome to the real world' baptist noel' .  Sounds like you may be teetering on the verge of growing up--but I'm not holding my breath. Sounds like you have been going round in blinkers all these years. I know gay people (notice I do not say but people in actively homosexual relationships--whatever that may mean) gay people ahve had to be hidden for decaes to avoid persecution, but if you had opened your eyes you might have seen people sahring their lives with love--and most noticable it was, in the C of E.  Well, we certainly arent going away so you may need to come to terms with real life.

Unless of course you are proposing the Nigerian or Akinola route-- imprison and harass and kill these damn queers.           YOU are contributing in your samll way to the oppression of lesbian and gay people arund the wold --we're still put to death in 40 counties.

You really don't believe in freedom of religion for any one but yourself--do you ?

'Let alone -- Live and let live.'

The reason it goes against the trend is that more are against the trend than their own publicity suggests. It is a rural church, and a rural church is going have problems whatever its churchship. Meanwhile, back in the 1980s when I was researching in (the city of) Hull, there was the whole of the main Holderness road and its churches, many of which were evangelical, and a frustrated evangelical saying that they would not grow. This was because it was in Hull, one of the most secular areas of the UK.Although the church I go to does reasonably well, it still only represents about one to one and a half per cent of the local population, and swells to two per cent at the main seasons. I suppose the other churches in the town double this. Other religions are negligible.

Morning everyone, it's a beauty here.

Pluralist - what an interesting observation about the church 30 seconds from your door. It is evangelical you say, could you say if it had had larger numbers attending in the past? This church seems to be going against the trend of evangelical increase/liberal decline which the media tells us about - only yesterday evening on Radio Four pundits and speakers were expounding that view. (Sorry, have forgotten the name of the program).

Steve Griffin - Yes it could appear that we are hard on conservatives and soft on liberals. I not sure about how liberals would feel about that, or whether they would accept being called liberal. I think all the labels are unfortunate even though I use them. I think that the problem people in the centre have had and are having with conservatives are complex. In some cases it is quite individual and based on experience and for others based upon theological issues. These factors also blur into one another for other people - I'm surmising and can only speak for myself afterall.

As someone in the middle, or in the Open bit of evangelism, I have been continually surprised and shocked by what is emanating from my conservative brothers in Christ. When engaging in these threads on Fulcrum's forum I have been continually struck that many conservative men seem to engage in the following manner,

1) The Grand Inquisitor, who wants to test your doctrinal correctness just because you are listening with good manners to a gay person or some other person unaceptable to their precepts. Because afterall, all Conservative men know that women are instinctive liberals, i.e. easily deceived like Eve, because of their soft feminine natures and nuturing instincts and so accordingly they must step in to point us in the right direction. (said as eirenically as irony can get)

3) The Flippant Irritator, who reads what you've written and then writes the comment in reverse. Granted reversal of arguments is a feature of Debate, but it gets lame when someone uses it all the time.

5) The Avoider, who ignores any challenge to conservative doctrine or behaviour by raising an unrelated point thereby diverting the course of thread.

After about twenty months on this forum I have found, unfortunately, that the majority of conservative contributors have confirmed my worst suspicions about conservatism in the CofE.

And sorry to say this for the millionth time, I'm not clergy and I'm not a theologian; I'm a Sunday school teacher who teaches The Bible, a wife, a mother, an evangelist in my life and now also a student. This has been a steep learning curve for me. I may not know all the stuff other folks here know, but I do know political campaigning when I see it. I do know powerplays when I see them. They can dress it up with Scripture as much as they like but they, my brother evangelists, have been planning and working towards schism and strife for a very long time to get to their "Godly" ends. The conservatives who think things have gone too far in their neck of the woods ( John Stott may well be one of them, why did he sign the CCE? It doesn't make any sense and interestingly there have been no explanations from him that I'm aware of.), should bring their brothers and sisters to heel but it may now be too late. I think that the degree of hardness you have perceived that some of us middling evangelicals towards the conservative wing is actually born of shock and disappointment in our fellow bible believers. We're all evangelicals and as the CCE types just will not listen to the liberals, you would have thought that the warnings from their more closely allied evangelical brethren might have been heeded. BUT NO. They will be covenant compliant because they dare not do otherwise.

Hi Steve

I personally don't buy the idea that there are 'two religions' in the CofE. I don't even really know what that means. I guess you could take the Goddards as examples of what you might mean, but I would have to say that they are both in the 'one' religion, whilst I am an evo by history and choice, I'm not willing to chuch Giles Goddard out quite yet!  Of course there are those in church who are inarguably not Christian, this has always been the case in the Church and certainly in the CofE.

I have met 'liberals' who I would suggest show something of Christ to me, and I have met 'liberals' who are simply 'humanists'.  I have also met 'evos' who are seekers of power via Christ and I have met (many many) evos who are the most Christlike people.  I do not wish to divide the line of heaven and hell down the liberal/evo divide.

So, I would suggest that communion centrists, on the conservative side (and here we are talking simply about sexual ethics, aren't we?) are simply recognising the complexity of hermeneutics and the nature of revelation and Scripture, and thus deem 'Communion' as having priority and the issue of homosexuality as having a secondary nature.

Two religions, no - One Church, One faith, One Lord.

take care, jody

I wrote this this morning -- not sure why it didn't go up --

Hello again, Jody,

By 'centrists' I mean 'communion liberals' and 'communion conservatives' together, according to Graham's typology, and yes, as I see it, one apparent aim of centrists is to keep the two religions under one umbrella as long as possible.  Do you see it that way too?  If you do, I assume you see some good that is lost if a clear split (along the lines that some Global South leaders hoped for until a temporary solution was found -- or along the lines that could very well take place here) takes place.  And I respect that, even if I don't agree.  If you don't think centrists have this aim, I be happy for you to help me understand why you don't.

I hope you can understand my predicament.  I've avoided certain Fulcrum threads partly because I don't know the ins and outs of the relevant issues locally and partly because they seem to get a little heated.  My impression (correct me if you see it otherwise) is that those of you who feel close to the aims and ethos of Fulcrum seem to be somewhat angry at the CE tradition, and rather more generous towards liberals in your tone and approach, when in fact what you confess fits much more closely with what concerns us over here on the confesing wing (when it comes to nuts-n-bolts basics).  So I'm up to bat with two strikes against me (pardon the baseball analogy) if I try to represent the CE side.  I'm not a boys' network and rugby club type, and I won't be pushed into that corner.  I think the strict CE rule (if that's what it is) that women shouldn't teach a mixed group is a sort of fence around the law, and my vicar knows that.  My view is closer to John Stott's (now maybe his view is a problem for you too -- we can discuss that, as long as we do it charitably).   But I'll work on that from within the confessing tradition, not by slinging rotten tomatoes at it from the side.   Strategically that's a fulcrumesque virtue, isn't it?

Karen -- thanks for your follow-up post, which just popped up.  I understand where you're coming from, and hopefully from what I've just said to Jody you'll get a better sense of what concerns me too.  I think the fact of general theological illiteracy, to say nothing of the cluelessness about wider issues, is a problem all around, so whatever stream we feel committed to we all have our work cut out for us!  I'm not sure about the choice you seem to present us with in your last line -- between wanting to be with Jesus and subscribing to doctrine.  I would have thought that these things must go hand in hand. 

Gotta go dig into more books at the British Library.  Thank you, British taxpayers, for this wonderful resource! 

_they will be labelled unevangelical or liberal, which is hard-line CE doublespeak for - not a christian_

It's not something that plagues me - first of all where I go is mixed, and there is a spread of people including at least two others whereabouts I am - but also it is important to say what you think even if it is complicated.

I agree that a lot of clericalism is involved here, but there will be a lot of moving around. There is an Anglican church 30 seconds from my door, but I go five miles because it is more compatible. The one 30 seconds away, run along over-narrow evangelical lines, is virtually dead anyway in terms of numbers, whereas where I go is reasonable and slightly putting on weight recently. As I say, it has a spread across the range, and there is an evangelical representation there but small. All but one of the preachers (including clerics) are reasoned and thoughtful to the extent that I have difficulty disagreeing with much of what is said. Now there's a thought. It is how it is pitched and how it reasons with biblical material and develops some of the historical arguments.

I don't know why this is actually the case or whether it is the same in other denoms. I have a sneaking feeling that it will be. Maybe it's a reflection of people's emotional needs being met by anything from a network of friends in a fellowship, to some sort quiet and pleasant isolation with Jesus whilst sitting in the pew. If these types of reasons for belonging are more common than actively confessed faith or revelated faith models, via doctrines, then we're all missing a stroke in these discussions. Afterall I never heard Jesus teach anything but Love. Perhaps it is also a reflection of a people in ignorance - have they been kept that way deliberately by clergy as a means of self preservation and maintenance of power?

This brings me to the crux of the problem with CCE, alternative parish alignments, principled actions and all the rest of it - namely - that these are driven by clerics not congregations.

This is all about clergy aligning themselves with or against one another and then supporting themselves in these actions by bringing their fellowships on board by the means of one-sided, biased arguments, put forward as the "Bible-Believing Way", so that the bible believing keenies in the church (- who are the ones you need to get on board, not that quiet widow sitting meekly in her pew -) will sign up to your agenda, because to do so ensures their own bible believing credentials within the group. We all know how the need for group approval allows Christians to put up with just about any rubbish a preacher, a pastor or vicar cares to push past them.

Seriously Steve, we have churches now which are dead with fear because people, even the keen types, especially the keen types who might have an inkling of the politics and the doctrinal extremism, are afraid that if they stand up to these men, they will be labelled unevangelical or liberal, which is hard-line CE doublespeak for - not a christian.

CEs who feel uncomfortable about these hardliners or angry with my critique need to look very carefully at exactly how the confessional Reformed doctrines are being bastardised by some of their OWN and how some people are using those doctrines to manipulate ordinary believers into a decision of which they cannot possibly fully apprehend the consequences. The Bible has a word for manipulation. Clergy are not leaders they are servants and thankfully many are still servants.

For others who may see the split that CCE presages as inevitable, sad but possibly beneficial, worth the loss of a few awkward CE parishes for a quieter life, I also say think on. This church has a responsiblity to the betrayed keenies who will suddenly find themselves out of the CofE without fully understanding the reasons why and/or the long term consequences. This church has a responsibility to the lady in the pew on Sunday morning who says nothing, but wonders why some of her friends have left, and why other people are making confusing announcements about her parish's future. I have a sneaking feeling that these people are being seen as acceptable collateral damage by some ministers on the various sides of these arguments.

Fair enough Steve

Although you do say that 'Centrists' want to hold together the communion with two religions in it.  I'm not sure that I misconstrued your meaning wholly?

jody

Thanks, Jody and Karen.  You both know far more than I do about the local church scene, since I've only been here in England 8 months or so.  So I honestly don't know what PCCs will do.  If your average Anglican church here is anything like those back in Canada, most folks in the pew are clueless about wider Anglican issues.  So I wouldn't be surprised at all if things basically go the way the vicar/rector wants them to go.  What I do know, and what I've made fairly plain, I guess, is that for confessional reasons I'm drawn to what's described here as Conservative Evangelical, even if I wouldn't necessarily tick every box or put things the very same way.  That's mostly because I've known Anglicanism in quite a number of dialects, and I'm afraid of ghettoizing (if that's the right term) in principle.  I wonder if I could just point two things out, by way of clarification:  Karen, when I've written of ++RW on Fulcrum I believe I've been respectful.  I just happen to disagree profoundly with his theology of revelation, so I believe I'm allowed to draw conclusions about where his theology leads without it being seen as a put-down.   In any case, I meant no harm in what I said to Jody (the wider context there is that she's also helpfully pointed out a flaw or two in the way I've put things, and I accepted her comment).  Jody, let me suggest that it's entirely possible to want others to come to know Jesus on the one hand, and for 'communion' or institutional reasons to want to remain in fellowship (if that's what we want to call it) with folks who have radically different assumptions about Christian basics from us, on the other hand.  So I think you may have overreacted to my remark.  I would think that as fellow evangelicals, especially, we could agree that we may just see the way forward for the church in all this quite differently.  I'll think about your Nineveh analogy.  Another problem here is that I can't add inflection, etc., to what I'm writing, to let you know that I'm not here to pick fights.  Sorry if it looked that way.  Best, Steve 

'And even if things are moving slowly, how does change happen? I do not suppose the status quo achieves this. It is happening because of the initiatives that some Global South churches are taking. For some, such initiatives may be too audacious and inconvenient, but they are part of the learning processes that challenges our suppositions and widen our horizons'

- relate to the quick and often covertly and undemocratically obtained changes of evangelical allegiance in a minority of evangelical English parishes where the vast majority of people wouldn't know what Global South is [the most they are likely to hear is that they are a good godly bible-believing lot with no details of the Dar Es Saleem secret conclaves or the Nigerian human rights issues] and are only just being introduced to the CCE now that all the fuss has died down? CCE was a travesty of unity with change - it was the complete opposite. Do you think that these PCCs will be introduced to any of the other alternative arguments from the other evangelicals? N. T Wright or Andrew Goddard? Very doubtful is the answer. Transparency in leadership intention doesn't seem to be within the remit of CE clerics because really it's all about power, money and control. We'll just trust the leaders to make the right decision on our parish's behalf - as one person was alleged to have done off tape of course!?!?

Some evangelical people think Anglican CE revelation and especially recent CE behaviours are the lowest common denominator, (I borrow you phraseology). Which is why many who would consider themselves conservative and evangelical now avoid the epithets when describing themselves and no longer wish to be associated with certain of that milieu.

Will Global South be moving in "such initiatives [WHICH] may be too audacious and inconvenient, but they are part of the learning processes that challenges our suppositions and widen our horizons'

on matters that would also concern Jesus - remember Him - like Third World governmental corruption, economic injustice, child slavery, trafficking, polygamy, witchcraft, dirty water, malnutrition, warlords, radical Islam, HIV/Aids, Malaria, orphans, widows, women's rights and zero human rights for anybody in most countries - not just Gay people in Nigeria - or will they continue to fall back on rich liberal lowest common denominator christians [and seculars]in the USA and elsewhere to tackle these Jesus issues; whilst telling them how to put their house in order? When Brother Akinolo has sorted out Nigeria he can sort me out.

In Jesus

ps You don't like the way Jody spoke to some other posters? And then you denigrate Rowan Williams? Splinters and Logs; Splinters and Logs Brother.

Steve

I do think this is bad behaviour and I was not being gender-specific when I stated that it was (unlike the deliberately sexist comment I made on the other thread, the reasons for which I won't go in to now)

However, you have shown your hand haven't you?  You only confirm my sneaking suspicion that the CE wing of the CofE is becoming a boys rugby club and if that is the case then 'now now boys' is not anywhere near enough of a reprimand.

With regards the covenant.  My comment on bad behaviour is more linked to the sense that PCCs will be hoodwinked into joining this covenant without really knowing or fully understanding the wider implications of doing so.  The most basic of which being that the AC is attempting to draw up a covenant that will draw us all closer to imaging the God we worship!

Fulcrum, as I understand it, is not 'happy' with the 'status quo', as you suggest.  We simply believe that mercy and grace come before judgement.  God gave the Ammonites 400 years to repent, but then he judged.  TEC have been given space to repent, we must let them have it, whether we think that will happen or not!  We hope that like Nineveh they will, or are we all going to be Jonahs about this? (oh please Lord, not the liberals, surely not them.....)  Additionally we do not wish to hold two religions together, what a ridiculous idea.  We wish all to come to know and trust Jesus as Lord and Saviour.  To make inflammatory statements to the contrary makes me think that this is just why PCCs are being frightened into signing up to this covenant, after all if the rest of us are liberal backsliders........

The CCE was meant to speak for all Evangelicals.  The response showed that it did not.  And yet there seems to be another movement to push it forward as if this was the only voice in Evangelicalism.  This leaves me disappointed and frustrated, yet again.

jody