Jody,

You attribute to GAFCON/FOCA a position they simply do not hold.

There is no question of FOCA claiming that to be Anglican you must be part of FOCA. To then go a step further - as you have done - and attribute to GAFCON/FOCA the extremist claim that to be evangelical you have to be part of FOCA is completely wrong.

(See thread on FOCA and Anglicanism for the actual stated position of GAFCON/FOCA - a clear affirmation of wider Anglicanism and not the slighest suggestion that FOCA now define evangelicalism)

These are difficult times but lets not paint a picture of GAFCON/FOCA that is an invented and alarmist cartoon

Peter H

er, I didn't mean we have enough heresy to deal with  in 4 small villages, just enough stuff to do!

Nersen,

at first I thought you were being ironic! (maybe you were in which case ignore the rest of this)

Of course our first priority as a church should be to get on with the job at a local level. If we didn't do that what would be the point of carrying on at all?

That doesn't mean no one cares about "heresy" etc, but we have enough to deal with just in 4 small villages. That's why I'm grateful to Fulcrum because they keep my horizons broad.

Kevin - what do you propose?   Surely not that we all get on with our local business, pretend all is well and let "innovations" and heresy happen without challenge?   

I would have a job persuading any of my three PCCs that GAFCON is worth discussing. Perhaps more pertinent will be the desire to witness to our community, as well as to ensure that we are financially able to here in 12 months time.

I think this position might just reflect the vast majority of the CofE. Before someone suggests they are sleepwalking to some sort of disaster; they are not. They are open hearted men and women who love their God, and are seeking to see his kingdom come in this particular benefice. What happens in Jerusalem or Lambeth seems a million miles away from them

Kevin

Will Fulcrum NEVER learn?

To expend your energy attacking those who are your closest theological allies because you disagree with the way they are addressing what continues to be an undeniable global crisis is a strategic error.

Your guide for PCCs is really unhelpful in so many respects.

What happened at GAFCON?

Was the FIRST most important thing the alleged blessing of its participants?  Really?

Was the SECOND most important thing the alleged personal and alleged unfair criticisms of Rowan?

Where is the balance in this alleged “reporting”?

And here we put up a false straw man in order to shoot down the whole:

“The Church of England is not in the same position as The Episcopal Church in the USA.”

If two small tweaks were made to this statement, you’d have nothing to disagree with:

The Church of England is not in [exactly] the same position as the Episcopal Church in the USA [yet].

That is the point.  There are lots of parallels between the UK and the US and to deny that is to act like an ostrich.

“The official documents and theological stance of leading bishops are thoroughly orthodox.”

Again, this time just one word added:

The official documents and theological stance of [some] leading bishops are thoroughly orthodox.

All is not well in the Communion but that does not justify the GAFCON lead in its present form, as indicated by its Final Statement and Jerusalem Declaration. When a patient is sick not just any antibiotic becomes the right prescription.

Tanach is correct when he mentions insufficient consultation. One difficulty with the Final Statement and Jerusalem Declaration is it makes a standard of orthodoxy which, in the wording used e.g. solemnly declaring ... tenets of orthodoxy, looks very much like THE standard of Anglican orthodoxy without submitting this as a proposal to the wider community of orthodox Anglicans beyond those invited to GAFCON. This is sad because we desparately need more unity among conservative Anglicans not less, but that need for greater unity does not make GAFCON right and its critics wrong.

Another difficulty with the Final Statement and Jerusalem Declaration is that together they provide justification for those signing up to it to distinguish themselves from those who do not, declare those who do not to be unworthy of jurisdiction over them, and proceed to alternative episcopal oversight supervised by the Primates Council. Hence the concern of the likes of +Tom Wright who, like a number posting here, cannot sign up to the JD in its present form.

There is a way forward and it consists of the GAFCON leaders backtracking a little, revising the Final Statement and Jerusalem Declaration (after wider consultation), and making it less susceptible to criticism from fellow conservatives and more inclusive as 'orthodox' of those who could sign up to most of it but have authentic theological reservations about a clause or two. My own detailed criticisms of the FS/JD are posted at: http://anglicandownunder.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-i-cannot-sign-up-to-jerusalem.html 

Thanks, David.

The GAFCON Final Statement is indeed about the worldwide Anglican Communion, but that includes the Church of England.

The public statements made at All Souls referred specifically to the Church of England.

I was present during the evening meeting at All Souls on 1 July, and, as I reported on the GAFCON thread yesterday, Peter Jensen said publicly:

What of England? What of GAFCON in England? You must take sides.

Greg Venables said publicly:

There are two versions of Christianity in the Church of England

and referred to the choices between the blessing and the curse in the book of Deuteronomy.

This statement from Fulcrum reflects more their opinion the GAFCON leadership than what was actually said in the final statement or at All Souls. The final statement is about the state of the worldwide communion, not about England. The focus of their analysis is the situation in North America where the episcopal leadership have made life impossible for bible believing folk. At All Souls it was made clear that they were not setting up a new church or giving England ready made solutions. The split is not just about sexual ethics or how scripture is authoritative. It is about the nature if the gospel,about the nature of salvation and the uniqueness of Christ as mentioned in the final statement. Some in Reform may have chosen the wrong battlefield with irregular ordinations but the sad story from Kidderminster shows how some bishops treat evangelicals.

The declaration is a statement of solidarity. It is not a denial of the authority of the bishop. It is a reaffirmation of the corporate right to freedom of conscience. Sad as it is, in the end a split church may be preferable to a compromised church.

David

Hi

GAFCON made it very plain that the expectation would be for all evangelicals to sign up to this statement.  That those who did not were plumping for a 'false Gospel' instead of the true Gospel.

As +Tom says in his interview on Radio4 this is offensive particularly to those who spend many hours every week working for the Gospel already.

I am sad that it was necessary for Fulcrum to write this briefing paper, however I suggest that it is GAFCON who are choosing to split us by giving out such an ultimatum.

Fulcrum has always been clear that we are waiting on the Windsor process and the Anglican Covenant as the way in which this can be achieved and not by a group separating off .

blessings, Jody

I was disappointed but not surprised to see the negative response from the Fulcrum Leadership.  Not surprised because they have failed to heed or respond to the warning from Michael Poon in his message of 12 June when he stated

North American and UK leading evangelicals have utterly failed to provide the necessary spiritual leadership in recent years, but have resorted to bickering and fratricidal actions that can lead only to mutual self-destruction.  Behind the fluent language and intellectual acumen of the proponents, there is a lack of charitable accommodation of one another, and an unwillingness to consult with one another.

NB think it is a misreading to believe GAFCON has no respect for evangelicals who are not part of it.  Note some GAFCON leaders are coming to Lambeth.  I wish they all were but given 3 weeks of indabas and no results are the aim of the process, I really don't blame those who do not want to waste their time.

Is it really a sensible response to GAFCON and Reform for "open" evangelicals to in the end end up split from "conservatives" but in fellowship with Changing Attitude and other liberals?  This is the risk.

The problem for "open" evangelicals is that they have little to disagree with in GAFCON theology..... but don't like the more confrontational approach of some of the "conservatives" ....or maybe just don't like some of the conservatives themselves...........which leads to lots of energy going on criticising "conservatives" and this only pleases those liberals who realise that splitting evangelicals is the only way to KEEP control of the CofE's structures.

The problem people like me have with being more patient and working within the structures is that all the loyalty to the ABC and lack of confrontation advocated by Fulcrum and ACI leades seems to achieve NOTHING as the liberal agenda advances year by year in the CofE. (I am thinking of secret Eucharists for those who condone behaviour "incompatible with scripture" and Lambeth invitations amongst other things) 

It's all very well to be critical of GAFCON, but what is the "softly softly" approach delivering in terms of positive results for the gospel rather thandividing evangelicals and maintaining the place and power of liberalism in the CofE? 

GACON is not perfect....but it is less imperfect than helping to legitimise liberal drift in the church.....I pray "open" evangelicals do not end up doing little more than this.