To User 924 - What in the 1920 Lambeth basis do you object to? It is far more inclusive as a basis than the Thirty-nine Articles and it was intended to heal rather than create divisions.

It was a concession to our separated or dissenting brethren - admitting the validity and reality of their ministries and minstry gifts - so I am perplexed at what exactly you have a problem with.

The purpose of Christian Unity is not an end in itself, it is so that we can work together to advance the Kingdom of Christ. But does not walking together or cooperation imply agreement? That seems to be what Amos thought (3:3). Isn't this what Paul was calling for in I Cor. 1:10 - that we all speak the same thing that there be no more divisions?

Rather than carping at my suggested basis of unity - why not be constructive and put forward your own alternative - what do you think would be a suitable platform that would include all who should be included and remain faithful to the Gospel?

So come on User 924 - who in your view is a Christian? In particular - enlighten us as to who my basis of Unity excludes that you want to include - perhaps that way we can make some progress.

BTW - isn't it time you identified yourself in a more human way, perhaps by using your Christian name?

With every good wish

Alan ;-)

In posting on Fulcrum forums, please could people remember the phrases in our introduction page, 'generosity of spirit and faithfulness to the Gospel'. It seems to me that some recent comments on this thread, and other threads, have overstepped this. 

The introduction page www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=14 continues:

'We deliberately seek to create a space in which genuine debate can take place in a spirit of non-defensiveness and gracious disagreement which acknowledges that the clash of ideas can be creative and worthwhile rather than threatening or destructive. As we say in our statement of goals, we want to affirm orthodoxy that is both generous and nourishing.' 

Hack away !

I seem to have aroused   y o u !

I don't think Jesus was referring to doctrines which would  be cobbled in the future, under essentially secular (& later, Erastian) processes.  I think the sayings of his, you quoted, are about waking up.  But they aren't about 'excisng' anyone however 'unsound'--- whatever that may mean.

I always think Cold Comfort Farm --- especially the film is a great anti-dote to fantasies of excision ! And divers insanities. 

also I find thd film 'batteries not included' a great testimony to God's inclusiveness and gracenotes.

However, the most deep exploration of the dire results of excision is Patrick (& I do mean Patrick) White's novel Riders in the chariot (Penguin).  Quaternary, mystical, realistic, --this novel is itself a scripture, to be read and re-read.  In fact, I've probbably read it more than any book apart from the Bible.

To User 974 - Don't shoot the messenger! Jesus tells us to remove the leaven of false doctrine, to chop off the unhealthy limb, pluck out the offending eye, and in Matthew 18 tells us how to do it. Paul follows through. This is historic Christianity - if you have a beef with this you have it with our founder - the Lord Jesus Christ not me.

Sorry I disturbed you slumber - but I supposed someone had to.

With every good wish,

Alan ;-)

I say Alan Bartley BSc ARCS     for Pope.  Or Chief Inquisitor. 

 One question :"Will you be throwing  out arrogant, opinionated  people as well ?"

I guess ducking-stools could also be given a new lease of life,after their long neglect.

We need some rallying point that can be the catalyst for excising the unsound members without dividing those of true faith. The balance to be struck is to find some common ground that unites all who are loyal and faithful to the Christ of the Ecumenical Creeds but excludes those of a more doubtful faith who ought not to be in the ministry.

The question is: is it possible to have a valid vocation to the ministry without coming up to the full Reformed view of Scripture? While my not ideal, my current thinking is yes providing one has a sound view of the Ecumenical Creeds, and particularly as they include Peter's confession of the incarnation that Jesus marked out as the embryonic faith on which He was to found His Church.

So short of God sending a Revival leading to a new Reformation we have to start from where we are not where we would like to be. The latter includes the weak legal interpretation of Article VI which was found compatible with 19th Century liberalism in the Essays and Reviews case and is equally capable of a Neo-Orthodox interpretation.

The Augsbug Confession on which our Article XIX "Of the Church" is based made the preaching of the Gospel and administration of the sacraments essential. Our Reformers altered the Preaching of the Gospel to the Preaching of the Pure Word of God. This is likely to be a reference to the incarnate Word of Article II rather than the whole of Scripture, though many take it as a reference to Word of God in the Parable of the Sower. Either way, our essentials fall short of demanding all our ministers subscribe to the Reformed or Evangelical view of Scripture.

As I say, short of a miraculous new Reformation we have no hope of carrying the majority of the Communion with us on an Evangelical platform - so the alternatives are to retreat to an Evangelical ghetto or aim at rebuilding on some broader platform such as the 1920 Lambeth Appeal. So is this idea tenable or a non-starter?

In closing, thank you to David for pointing out that the statement on Scripture is stronger than it at first appears.

'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God....and the Word became text and dwellt among us' ;-)

Richard

This evangelical finds the wording of this appeal wholly unacceptable.  The scriptures are not merely the record of God's revelation to man. They are revelation itself.

Far too much liberaling weaseling has gone on under the cover of holding the bible to be but a "record of revelation".

THE LAMBETH 1920 APPEAL TO ALL CHRISTIAN PEOPLE AS THE BASIS FOR UNITY.

DOCUMENT: "An Appeal to All Christian People" http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1920/1920-9.cfm

Can we seek the boundaries of Anglican Orthodoxy by returning to the basis of Belief and Practice set out by the 1920 Conference as a suitable Anglican basis for Christian Reunion?

If these were our Essentials for participation in a United Church founded on Catholic principles, it can help us in discerning whether irregular Anglican ordinations are valid but not licit (legal) as well as also testing whether a liberal Diocese or Church has strayed outside the pale of Anglican Orthodoxy.

The "An Appeal to All Christian People" was criticised at the time as giving too much to non-Episcopal communions by saying among other things: "It is not that we call in question for a moment the spiritual reality of the ministries of those Communions which do not possess the Episcopate. On the contrary we thankfully acknowledge that these ministries have been manifestly blessed and owned by the Holy Spirit as effective means of grace." [VII].

The fundamentals were expressed as:

>>>

VI. We believe that the visible unity of the Church will be found to involve the whole-hearted acceptance of:-

The Holy Scriptures, as the record of God's revelation of Himself to man, and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith; and the Creed commonly called Nicene, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith, and either it or the Apostles' Creed as the Baptismal confession of belief:

The divinely instituted sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion, as expressing for all the corporate life of the whole fellowship in and with Christ:

A ministry acknowledged by every part of the Church as possessing not only the inward call of the Spirit, but also the commission of Christ and the authority of the whole body.

<<<

Seven (VII) goes on to start with the suggestion: "May we not reasonably claim that the Episcopate is the one means of providing such a ministry? It is not that we call in question ... [as quoted above].

Eight (VIII) starts "We believe that for all, the truly equitable approach to union is by way of mutual deference to one another's consciences ...."

To me, the Episcopate is a trust, and that trust is abused both by Ordaining or Consecrating Bishops and Priests who fail the test of orthodoxy, or at the opposite extreme refuse to acknowledge by Ordaining those who manifestly have been called and gifted by Christ to the Office of Presbyter.

That is easy to say, but the devil is in the detail - were the Southwark Ordinations a result of the Bishop of Southward abusing his trust by refusing or by the ordainer/s acting schismatically by ordaining someone who ought never have been ordained? Are the Consecration of women and gay clergy or the ordination of gay or women clergy a breach of trust? Or has the Church for 2000 years been in breach of trust in overlooking such people's call and gift?

I am using the word trust in its wider sense of someone with delegated authority exercising his authority in good faith with all due care and diligence within the letter and spirit of his Commission or delegated authority.

My first contribution is to suggest that "The Holy Scriptures, as the record of God's revelation of Himself to man" as any Historic or Legal Document means what its original writers understood it to mean. As "revelation of Himself to man" we do not understand by Inspiration that the writers wrote as automata, but that they understood what they wrote and meant the words in the way they would have used those words at the time. In this record we have "the rule and ultimate standard of faith" with the caveat taken from Eight that "the truly equitable approach to union is by way of mutual deference to one another's consciences ....".

With that will stand aside for a few days see how others brainstorm this idea,

With every good wish,

Alan